C5 


•IIBI1BMIWI II I » 
$B    12fi   fill 


WhatmePwsSaid 

Comment  on 

theTen  Million  DollarLibel  Suit 
againsaihe  ChicagoTribune 

Compliment,  of  The  ChicagoTribune 


Editorial  Comment  in  the 
American  Press 


What  American  Editors  Said 
about  the 

Ten  Million  Dollar 
Libel  Suit 


Editorial  Comment  in  American 

press  on  the  lawsuit  brought  in  the 

name  of  the  City  of  Chicago  against 

The  Chicago  Tribune 


December,  1921 

Published  for  Private  Circulation  by 

The  Chicago  Tribune 

Chicago,  111. 


Preface 

N  the  following  pages  will  be  found  the 
views  of  the  American  press  on  the  suit 
for  ten  million  dollars  damages  brought 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune  by  the  cor- 
poration of  the  City  of  Chicago  at  the 
instance  of  the  Thompson  administration. 

This  suit  was  a  novelty  in  American  law,  being  founded 
on  the  theory  that  because  a  municipal  corporation  holds 
property,  makes  contracts,  employs  credit  and  carries  on 
business,  it  is  entitled  to  bring  action  like  a  private 
corporation,  for  libelous  publication. 

To  this  suit  the  Tribune  filed  demurrer  chiefly  on  the 
ground  that  a  municipality  is  a  political  agency,  an  agency 
of  government,  and  that  to  permit  a  suit  for  civil  damages 
for  libel  would  be  infringement  upon  the  right  of  free 
speech  and  free  press. 

On  this  ground  Judge  Harry  M.  Fisher,  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Cook  County,  sustained  the  demurrer  in  a 
notable  opinion,  widely  quoted,  as  will  appear  in  the 
following  editorial  discussion  of  the  case. 

From  this  discussion  it  will  be  observed  that  virtually 
the  entire  press  of  the  United  States,  to  say  nothing  of 
several  of  the  leading  newspapers  of  Great  Britain, 
recognized  the  importance  of  the  suit  as  a  recrudescence 
of  the  long  continued  effort  of  governmental  authority  to 
paralyze  criticism,  an  effort  beginning  with  the  Star 
Chamber  and  ending  with  the  thorough  establishment  of 
political  freedom  in  the  American  republic. 

The  suit  is  an  anomaly,  without  precedent  in  American 
law,  and  as  Judge  Fisher  remarked,  is  "not  in  harmony 
with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions. 


A78G79 


[3] 


It  does  not  belong  in  our  day.  It  fits  in  rather  with  the 
genius  of  the  rulers  who  conceived  of  law  not  in  the 
purity  of  love  for  justice,  but  in  the  lustful  passion  for 
undisturbed  power." 

The  comment  of  the  American  press  on  this  case  and 
Judge  Fisher's  decision,  the  Tribune  believes,  is  of 
historical  interest  and  therefore  offers  it  to  the  newspaper 
fraternity  and  to  the  public  as  a  noteworthy  expression 
of  American  thought  and  principle. 


ALTON  (111.)  Tclcyrupli,  Oct.  .>,  UKM. 

Libel  Suits  and  Officials 

Mayor  Thompson,  in  the  name  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
has  sued  for  libel  The  Chicago  Tribune.  The  Tribune, 
the  city's  suit  alleges,  hurt  the  reputation  of  the  city. 

Many  things  are  involved  in  the  suit.  There  is,  of 
course,  the  question  of  whether  a  newspaper  is  allowed  t o 
criticise  public  officials.  There  really  should  be  no 
argument  on  this  point.  The  modern  American  form 
of  government  is  not  the  idealistic  thing  the  fathers 
intended  it  should  be.  The  people  of  this  republican— 
not  pure  democracy  are  guaranteed  the  right  of  getting 
rid  of  officials  who  do  not,  in  the  modern  parlance,  hit 
the  ball.  The  method  is  the  ballot  box.  But  many 
things  have  been  done  to  destroy  this  right.  The  great- 
est instrument  against  it  is  the  political  machine,  a 
form  of  primary,  party  bossism  and  other  things. 

When  all  these  elements  destroy — as  they  have  in 
many  cases — the  right  of  removal  by  the  people,  there 
must  be  some  recourse.  That  recourse  is  the  news- 
paper. If  there  ever  was  an  inalienable  right,  it  is  that 
of  the  newspaper  to  criticise  public  officials.  Any  judge 
who  would  seek  to  deny  or  curb  this  right  is  taking  from 
the  American  people  one  of  its  greatest  treasures,  a 
treasure  no  other  people  enjoy. 

Then,  in  the  Chicago  case,  Mayor  Thompson,  osten- 
sibly, is  using  money  of  the  city  of  Chicago  to  fight  a 
newspaper  which  has  criticised  government  of  Chicago. 
The  suit,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  has  been  brought  by 
the  city. 

EAST  ST.  Louis  (111.)  Journal,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Valiant  Free  Press  Necessary  for  the 
Public  Weal 

The  decision  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher  that  the  city  of 
Chicago  had  no  actionable  cause  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  and  News  in  the  $10,000,000  damage  suits  in- 
stituted by  the  city  administration  positively  and 
specifically  upholds  the  freedom  of  the  press  as  a  con- 
stitutional right.  The  press  is  at  liberty,  the  court 


[5] 


held,  not  only  to  exercise  the  equivalent  of  free  speech  in 
printing  news  and  expressing  opinion,  but  to  expose 
wrongdoing  in  public  office  and  even  to  attack  public 
servants. 

Modern  society  could  not  exist  in  security,  nor  repre- 
sentative government  endure,  without  alert,  just,  im- 
partial, vigorous  and  fearless  publicity.  And  the  un- 
trammeled  press,  sincere  in  motive  and  honest  in  pur- 
pose, is  the  most  indispensable  of  public  institutions. 
The  church,  the  schools,  commerce,  the  people  and  the 
government  itself  depend  on  the  daily  newspaper  as 
their  most  valuable  and  necessary  auxiliary,  using  it 
constantly  as  their  own  medium  to  advance  the  general 
welfare. 

The  press  sees  and  hears  everything  of  importance  in 
all  parts  of  the  world.  Its  vigilance  and  publicity  pre- 
vent revolutionary  upheavals,  hold  standard  political 
entities  together,  locate  and  feed  the  starving  and  per- 
secuted, and  maintain  a  kind  of  international  equilibrium 
of  peace  and  progress.  The  press  states  or  molds  public 
sentiment  and  opinion  against  great  wrongs  and  for 
noble  principles. 

The  present  is  the  people's  era,  and  the  press  is  the 
people's  institution.  That  these  are  existent  and  recog- 
nized facts  is  demonstrated  especially  by  the  universal 
demand  for  publicity  at  the  forthcoming  disarmament 
conference.  It  is  feared  that  the  disarmament  con- 
ference will  not  be  sufficiently  successful  without  the 
glaring  light  of  publicity. 

As  the  press  is  public,  it  must  be  free.     Because  it  is-/ 
responsible  to  the  public,  its  abuse  of  power  need  not 
be  feared,  for  the  public  would  cease  to  support  a  news- 
paper that  violated  its  trust  or  failed  in  its  duty.     Put-*' 
ting  the  press  in  chains  would  be  the  same  as  shackling 
the  people.     In  the  finality,  it  is  by  its  fulfillment  of 
public  obligations  that  a  newspaper  merits  respect  and 
wields  influence,  and  by  disregard  of  public  interests  or 
the  common  weal  that  it  destroys  itself. 


[6] 


OSKALOOSA    (la.)   Iln-aliL  Oct.    18,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press 

The  damage  suit  brought  in  the  name  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  $10,000,000 
involved  more  llian  an  attempt  to  "get  even  with  I  he 
press"  for  exposing  a  lot  of  public  irregularities  in 
Chicago.  It  held  in  its  wake  the  destiny  of  the  freedom 
of  the  press.  Judge1  Fisher,  in  deciding  to  throw  I  lie 
case  out  of  court  recognized  the  importance  of  the  dan- 
ger, and  emphasized  it  in  his  decision. 

The  decision  was  of  far-reaching  importance  to  news- 
papers, as  the  suit  was  the  first  on  record  in  which  a 
municipality  sought  to  restrict  the  right  to  criticize  its 
corporate  acts. 

The  court  said  that  examination  of  the  early  English 
law  only  served  to  point  out  the  necessity  of  avoiding  its 
principles.  He  characterized  its  history  as  telling  the 
story  of  the  struggle  for  human  liberty. 

"It  is  a  succession  of  repressive  measures  with  vary- 
ing degrees  of  inhuman  penalties  on  the  one  hand  and 
a  stubborn  resistance  to  them  by  the  champions  of 
liberty  on  the  Other,"  Judge  Fisher  said. 

"The  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  was,  at  the 
very  inception  of  our  government,  regarded  as  indis- 
pensable to  a  free  state,"  said  Judge  Fisher. 

The  court  said  that  torture  and  even  death  itself  had 
not  availed  to  suppress  the  desire  for  freedom  of  speech 
and  public  worship  and  that  legitimate  restraints  had 
been  narrowed  down  to  four  heads — blasphemy,  immor- 
ality, sedition  and  defamation.  .Dismissing  the  first  two 
as  not  involved  in  the  present  hearing,  he  held  that  if 
the  articles  in  which  The  Chicago  Tribune  asserted  that 
the  city  was  "broke"  were  neither  seditious  nor  libelous, 
they  were  unrestrained.  He  then  pointed  out  that  the 
counsel  for  the  city  had  admitted  that  the  publications 
were  not  seditious. 

Judge  Fisher  extolled  the  part  which  newspapers  play 
in  modern  industrial  and  social  development  and  in 
times  of  national  stress  such  as  the  recent  war.  He 
said  that  with  increased  power  of  the  press  had  come 
naturally  increased  abuses  of  power.  He  pointed  out 
that  often  a  great  part  of  the  press  is  led  to  serve  eco- 


[7] 


nomic  interests  to  the  detriment  of  the  public,  but  he 
added  that  the  harm  it  could  do  was  limited  by  the  fact 
that  existence  of  a  newspaper  depends  upon  the  public 
favor. 

"It  cannot  long  indulge  in  falsehoods  without  losing 
that  confidence  from  which  alone  comes  its  power,  its 
prestige  and  its  reward,"  Judge  Fisher  said. 

"On  the  other  hand  the  harm  which  would  certainly 
result  to  the  community  from  an  officialdom  unrestrained 
by  fear  of  publicity  is  incalculable." 

The  court  said  that  if  the  present  suit  could  be  main- 
tained" then  public  officials  would  have  in  their  power 
one  of  the  most  effective  instruments  with  which  to 
intimidate  the  press  and  silence  their  enemies." 

From  the  Sioux  City  Journal,  reprinted  in  the 
COUNCIL  BLUFFS  (la.)  News,  Oct.  24,  1921. 

A  Notable  Press  Victory 

Judge  Harry  Fisher,  of  Chicago,  in  sustaining  the 
demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  to  the  $10,000,000 
libel  suit  brought  by  the  municipality,  has  helped  to 
maintain  the  principle  of  a  free  American  press.  Again 
a  notable  newspaper  victory  has  been  won  and  a  service 
of  information  and  interpretation  has  been  protected 
for  the  good  of  the  public.  A  muzzled  press  would 
not  be  worth  much  in  America  where  journalism  has 
been  developed  to  a  point  at  which  the  newspaper  is 
regarded  as  a  public  necessity. 

Mayor  Thompson  had  been  attacked  and  criticised 
for  his  management  of  .the  city's  financial  affairs. 
Chicago  was  found  to  be  unable  to  pay  its  current  bills 
for  its  regular  corporate  expenses,  and  the  Tribune  and 
the  News  referred  to  this  condition  as  "bankruptcy." 
It  was  pointed  out  by  the  papers  that  the  city  adminis- 
tration, which  had  been  administering  the  a  flairs  of 
the  municipality,  had  brought  the  finances  to  sucli  a 
condition  of  "bankruptcy."  Therefore  Mayor  Thomp- 
son, in  suing  the  two  newspapers  in  the  name  of  the 
city  and  in  its  behalf,  charged  that  (hr  good  name  and 
the  credit  of  Chicago  had  been  injured  to  the  extent 
of  $10,000,000.  The  two  suits  were  the  first  on  record 


[8] 


in  this  country,  and  the  objective  of  the  city  officials 
was  to  restrict  the  right  of  a  newspaper  lo  criticise  their 
corporate  acts.  In  other  words  an  organization  or  an 
individual  which  composed  a  part  of  the  business  or 
the  social  life  of  the  community  was  to  be  restricted  from 
expressing  an  opinion  about  the  way  the  affairs  of  (he 
community  were  being  handled. 

Once  more  it  became  necessary  for  an  American  judge 
to  remind  the  public  that  this  is  America  and  not  K up- 
land. Only  a  few  months  ago  another  judge  held  in 
the  case  of  Len  Small,  governor  of  Illinois,  that  the 
old  English  idea  of  "the  king  doing  no  wrong"  con  Id 
not  be  applied  here  because  there  were  no  kings  in  this 
country.  Governor  Small's  attorneys  had  claimed  im- 
munity for  their  powerful  client  because  of  his  executive 
position.  Judge  Fisher  holds  that  the  portion  of  the 
English  law  which  restricted  the  liberty  of  the  press  had 
not  been  inherited  by  America.  No  lese  majesty  is 
possible  here  because  America  has  no  personage  of 
majestic  influence  or  character  under  the  law.  Referring 
to  the  suit,  Judge  Fisher  said:  "This  action  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our 
institutions." 

If  the  city  of  Chicago  had  been  able  to  proceed  with 
its  suit  against  the  Tribune  and  News,  a  precedent  dan- 
gerous to  American  freedom,  liberty  and  privilege 
would  have  been  established.  It  would  have  meant  that 
the  great  American  public  would  be  limited  as  to  the 
service  it  received  from  the  daily  newspapers  every- 
where. That  service  consists  of  the  news  of  the  day 
and  an  interpretation  thereof.  If  a  municipality  or 
other  organization  had  the  right  under  the  law  to  enjoin 
the  publication  of  facts  and  the  expression  of  opinion 
in  any  particular,  the  barrier  reared  against  the  news- 
papers might  be  put  anywhere.  That  would  assail  the 
very  spirit  of  American  liberty,  would  break  down  one 
principle  after  another  until  little  of  value  would  be  left. 

The  newspaper  stands  apart  as  an  American  institu- 
tion. Its  purpose  is  twofold — the  manufacturing  of  a 
commodity  or  service  that  can  be  sold  at  a  profit  for 
the  benefit  of  its  proprietors  and  employers  and  the 
dissemination  of  honest  opinion  and  facts  for  the  benefit 


[9] 


of  the  majority  it  serves, 
intolerable. 


Any  impairment  of  either  is 


INDIANAPOLIS  (Ind.)  News,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

A  Silly  Suit 

The  silly  libel  suit  for  $10,000,000  damages  brought 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune  by  Mayor  Thompson  and 
other  officials  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago  evidently 
did  not  impress  Judge  Fisher  of  the  Circuit  court  as  hav- 
ing any  merit — as  of  course  it  had  not.  For  last  week 
the  court  sustained  a  demurrer  to  the  complaint — a 
demurrer  that  seems  to  have  gone  to  the  merits  of  the 
controversy.  The  theory  was  that  the  city  of  Chicago 
had  been  injured  by  the  criticisms  directed  by  the 
Tribune  against  Thompson  and  his  associates.  The 
judge  held  that  such  a  suit  "is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions, "  and  he 
continued : 

Stripped  of  all  the  elaborate  argument,  in  the  confusion  of 
which  the  question  for  decision  might  look  difficult,  the  fact 
remains  that,  if  this  action  is  maintainable,  then  public 
officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective  instru- 
ments with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to  silence 
their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of 
every  one  who  dares  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men 
in  power.  .  .  .  The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of 
the  world,  and  to  a  great  extent  humanity  in  contact  with 
all  its  parts.  It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal 
of  the  suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our 
officials  and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their 
power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which 
unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts  of  public 
benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue 
undismayed,  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of 
the  unscrupulous  demagogue. 

The  remedy  of  Thompson  and  the  others,  if  they  had 
been  aggrieved,  was  clear — namely  a  libel  suit  on  their 
own  behalf.  But  they  chose  to  put  the  city  forward 
as  plaintiff — whether  they  had  any  right  to  do  this  is 
certainly  very  doubtful — and  to  assume  that  the  city 
was  injured,  not  by  the  administration  in  power,  but 
by  the  critic  of  that  administration.  This  is  no  new 
theory;  on  the  contrary,  it  has  often  been  put  forward 
by  public  officers  seeking  to  silence  just  criticism,  though 


[10] 


never  till  now  has  the  city,  through  the  very  men 
criticized,  sought  redress  in  the  courts.  There  have 
always  been  people  to  say  that  the  city  "would  be 
hurt"  if  the  truth  were  told,  and  that  therefore  silence 
should  l>r  kept  concerning  misfeasance,  malfeasance  or 
ftonfeasance  in  office.  That  was  the  notion  of  the  Tweed 
ringsters  at  the  very  time  that  they  were  robbing  the 
city  of  millions.  The  crookeder  public  officials  are,  the 
more  "jealous"  are  they  for  the  good  name  of  the  city. 
As  far  as  Chicago  has  been  injured  it  is  not  by  the 
Tribune,  but  by  Thompson  and  his  crowd.  It  is  amus- 
ingly impudent  that  they  should  have  assumed  to  act 
in  defense  of  the  reputation  of  the  city — impudent, 
and  wholly  in  character.  The  real  question,  as  Judge 
Fisher  said,  was  whether  they,  as  "public  officials," 
should  "have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective 
instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to 
silence  their  enemies." 

LOGANSPORT  (Ind.)  Tribune,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Big  Bill  Loses 

Mayor  Bill  Thompson's  suit  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  for  $10,000,000  for  alleged  libel  on  the  basis 
that  the  Tribune's  statement  that  because  of  the  manip- 
ulations of  the  political  machine  the  City  of  Chicago 
was  bankrupt,  has  been  thrown  out  of  court  by  Circuit 
Court  Judge  Harry  M.  Fisher  on  demurrer  filed  by  the 
Tribune.  Judge  Fisher  in  sustaining  the  demurrer 
made  this  judicial  statement: 

'This  suit  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit 
or  object  of  our  institutions. 

"It  does  not  belong  to  our  day,  but  rather  to  the  day 
when  monarchs  promulgated  laws  with  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  their  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed  power. 

"Since  no  cause  for  action  exists,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
consider  any  of  the  other  questions  involved  in  the  argu- 
ment." 

HUNTINGTON  (Ind.)  Press,  Oct.  22,  1921. 

Judge  Fisher  in  rendering  his  decision  in  the  suit  by 
Mayor  Thompson  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  said  of  a  newspaper:  "It  is  the  spokesman  of 


the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the  suffering.  It  holds  up 
for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials  and  of  those  men  in 
high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power  to  advance  peace 
or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  unifies  public 
sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  benefactors 
would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undis- 
mayed and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the 
unscrupulous  demagogue." 

GOSHEN  (Ind.)  Times,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Chicago  Tribune  vs.  Chicago 

Since  his  $10,000,000  damage  suit  was  kicked  out  of 
court,  Mayor  Bill  Thompson  would  doubtless  welcome 
a  suggestion  of  some  workable  plan  to  muzzle  The 
Chicago  Tribune. 

GOSHEN  (Ind.)  Democrat,  Oct.  26,  1921. 

Free  Press  Upheld 

When  he  brought  a  $10,000,000  libel  suit  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  be- 
cause of  criticisms  of  his  administration,  Mayor  Thomp- 
son must  have  known  that  he  had  little  chance  of  suc- 
cess. Free  criticism  of  public  officials  or  their  admin- 
istrations has  been  a  popular  institution  of  this  country 
from  the  outset  as  well  as  one  of  its  most  important  safe- 
guards. Journalistic  freedom  has  been  and  is  sometimes 
abused,  but,  as  Thomas  Jefferson  once  wisely  said,  even 
that  is  "a  part  of  the  price  we  pay  for  our  liberty, 
which  can  not  be  guarded  but  by  the  freedom  of  the 
press,  nor  that  be  limited  without  danger  of  losing  it." 
Jefferson  made  this  memorable  statement  in  1786.  Fifty 
years  later  De  Tocqueville,  the  visiting  French  writer, 
noted  that  no  American  had  "as  yet  dared  to  propose 
any  restriction  on  the  liberty  of  the  press."  Now,  13.5 
years  later,  the  same  may  be  said — unless  we  except 
Mayor  Thompson's  libel  suit  and  its  transparent  aim. 

That  The  Chicago  Tribune's  demurrer  to  the  Thompson 
libel  suit  would  be  sustained  by  Judge  Fisher  of  the  Cir- 
cuit court  could  almost  have  been  regarded  as  a  foregone 
eonclusion.  Judge  Fisher  upheld  not  only  the  Tribune 


[12] 


a  free  press  in  general  and  the  right  of  the  people 
to  he  fully  informed  concerning  their  own  aiVairs  and 
interests.  'The  press,"  he  says,  "has  become  the  eyes 
and  ears  of  the  world,"  and  further:  "It  is  the  spokes- 
man of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the  suffering.  It 
holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials  and  of  those 
men  in  high  plaees  who  have  it  in  their  power  to  advance 
peaee  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  foree  which  unifies  public 
sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  benefactors 
would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undis- 
mayed, and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of 
the  unscrupulous  demagogue."  In  this  decision  the 
Thompsons  of  every  section  are  duly  warned  that  they 
can  never  reverse  popular  sentiment  in  this  connection, 
based  as  it  is  on  the  command  of  the  constitution  itself: 
"Congress  shall  make  no  law  .  .  .  abridging  the  free- 
dom of  speech  or  of  the  press." 

x 
JACKSON  (Mich.)  Patriot,  Sept.  28,  1921. 

Libeling  Government 

A  few  professional  politicians,  temporary  occupants  of 
public  offices  in  Illinois,  have  brought  suit  in  the  name  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  against  a  newspaper  because  of  its 
criticisms  of  their  public  acts.  They  allege  the  city  of 
Chicago  has  suffered  material  losses  and  impairment  of 
credit  because  of  the  newspaper's  attacks.  No  untruths 
are  charged  against  the  paper. 

The  doctrine  that  government  can  institute  on  its  own 
behalf  civil  or  criminal  action  for  libel  is  a  most  dangerous 
one.  If  it  is  sustained,  a  member  of  Congress  of  one  party 
might  be  declared  a  criminal  for  public  criticism  of  an 
opponent  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  ministers  of  religion 
would  have  to  keep  in  mind  the  doctrine  that  they  must 
not  speak  of  the  sins  of  their  community  from  the  pulpit, 
judges  themselves  might  be  assailed  for  giving  a  man  a 
bad  reputation. 

Judicial  remedies  should  of  course  be  open  to  all 
citizens,  but  Government  itself  should  not  appeal  to  one 
of  the  most  powerful  of  its  own  agencies,  the  courts,  to 
establish  the  line  between  what  is  permissible  and  for- 
bidden in  criticisms  of  Government. 


[13] 


CADILLAC  (Mich.)  News,  Oct.  12, 

Mayor  Thompson's  administration  in  Chicago  is  suing 
the  Tribune  for  libel  because  that  paper  declared  the  city 
was  "broke"  as  a  result  of  reckless  extravagance  in  civic 
work.  The  defense  contends  that  any  criticism  of  an 
administration  may  be  made  without  transgressing 
legitimate  freedom  of  the  press  unless  the  criticism  is  cal- 
culated to  incite  citizens  to  disregard  the  law  or  to  seek 
to  overthrow  the  government.  The  Tribune  has  public 
opinion  with  it  in  attacking  the  Thompson  machine  just 
as  it  had  in  the  libel  action  brought  by  Ford,  the  pacifist. 


KALAMAZOO  (Mich.)  Gazette,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

The  Tribune  Suit 

One  of  the  most  novel  law  suits  ever  brought  in  an 
American  court,  one,  in  fact,  that  is  without  precedent, 
was  that  of  the  City  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  in  which  $10,000,000  was  asked  because  of  the 
newspaper's  criticism  of  the  civic  administration.  A 
Chicago  judge  disallowed  the  right  of  the  city  to  have  the 
fact  of  whether  or  not  the  city  was  libeled  by  the  news- 
paper tried  by  a  jury  on  the  ground  that  the  suit  was  not 
"in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  or  objects  of  our 
institutions,"  and  "did  not  belong  to  our  day,  but  rather 
to  a  day  when  monarchs  promulgated  laws  with  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  out  their  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed 
power." 

The  fundamental  law  of  the  United  States  is  the  incar- 
nation of  justice,  and  regardless  of  the  letter  of  inter- 
pretative enactments  or  the  numerous  abridging  or 
amplifying  decisions  which  govern  our  conduct,  it  is  a 
fact  that  law  born  of  a  desire  for  power  is  unconstitutional, 
and  should  be  immediately  so  stamped.  It  is,  and  it 
should  be,  on  the  other  hand,  the  right  of  administrators 
and  judicial  officers  to  discharge  their  duties  without 
fear  or  intimidation  from  any  extraneous  institution,  even 
the  press,  because  if  the  press  is  to  enjoy  the  right  of 
free  speech  it  must  respect  that  right  and  not  permit 
it  to  attain  the  color  of  a  privilege  to  trespass  on  the 
rights  of  others,  since  it  is  a  Blackstonian  fundamental 


[14] 


that  for  every  right  there  is  an  obligation,  and  the  obli- 
gation of  the  press  is  just  as  important  as  its  right. 

The  wisdom  of  the  Chicago  decision  will,  therefore,  be 
universally  approved  because  the  City  of  Chicago  could 
not  show  I  lint  the  plaintiff  was  for  personal  motives  trying 
to  embarrass  the  conduct  of  civic  affairs,  or  itself  trying 
to  wrest  from  the  elected  officials  of  the  city  the  power 
which  properly  belongs  to  them.  The  rights  of  the  press 
remain  unabridged,  and  it  is  meet  and  right  that  this 
should  be  so  because  in  the  role  of  critic  it  becomes  the 
custodian  of  a  great  trust.  But  there  should  be  no  con- 
struing that  right  to  mean  that  the  press  has  a  license  to 
challenge  well  meaning  administrations  to  the  point 
where  citizens  will  shrink  from  accepting  public  office, 
and  where  the  power  of  administration,  instead  of  being 
vested  in  the  elected  officials,  will  in  fact  be  the  property 
of  the  occupant  of  an  editorial  sanctum.  The  news- 
papers of  America  do  not  want  such  power.  It  would  be 
an  embarrassment,  but  they  are  not  on  that  account 
disposed  to  surrender  their  right  to  discuss  freely  and 
fearlessly  the  motives  and  executiveship  of  adminis- 
trations. 

DETROIT  (Mich.)  Free  Press,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Chicago  Loses  a  Lawsuit 

The  action  for  libel  which  was  brought  by  the  city  of 
Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  rested  upon  the 
accusation  that  the  newspaper  by  untruthful  charges 
against  the  city  administration  had  impaired  the  credit 
of  Chicago  and  had  prevented  it  from  borrowing  money. 
A  demurrer  was  filed  by  the  defendant  and  the  court 
has  now  held  that  the  city  has  no  right  of  action  for  libel 
against  a  newspaper. 

The  theory  of  the  law  in  Illinois,  as  the  court  outlined 
it,  is  that  the  utmost  freedom  of  public  criticism  is  desir- 
able in  public  affairs,  and  that  any  state  of  the  law  which 
permitted  a  public  administration  to  defend  itself  against 
its  critics  by  libel  suits  financed  out  of  public  funds  would 
result  in  an  intolerable  restriction  upon  free  speech  and 
a  free  press. 

It  may  be  said  that  a  city  having  an  honest  adminis- 
tration of  its  affairs  ought  not  to  be  left  without  redress 


[15] 


for  false  and  damaging  charges  and  that  if  the  law  does 
not  provide  a  remedy,  the  door  is  open  for  any  mendacious 
enemy  of  the  city  to  damage  it  by  lying  accusations. 
The  force  of  this  position  is  not  to  be  denied,  but  against 
it  there  stands  considerations  weighty  enough  to  over- 
balance it  completely. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  first  that  the  inability  of  a 
municipal  corporation  to  sustain  actions  for  libel  does  not 
extend  to  the  officers  of  a  city.  If  they  are  charged  with 
wrongdoing  in  office,  they  may  go  to  court;  but  when 
they  go,  it  will  be  upon  their  own  responsibility  and 
they  will  pay  their  own  way.  They  will  not  be  able  to 
turn  the  people's  money  and  the  organization  through 
which  the  people  govern  themselves  against  private 
citizens  and  private  enterprises.  A  vindictive  man  in 
office  might  make  it  dangerous  for  any  honest  citizen  to 
speak  his  mind  about  city  affairs  if  officials  could  turn 
the  city's  law  organization  and  the  city  purse  against 
citizens  in  libel  suits.  Public  criticism  is  the  first  weapon 
of  the  people  against  bad  public  administration,  and  it  is 
too  precious  to  be  threatened  or  limited  by  the  men 
against  whom  it  is  directed.  Their  remedy  is  to  go  to 
the  people  with  answers  to  their  critics  and  in  the  long 
run  it  will  be  a  sufficient  remedy. 

GRAND  RAPIDS  (Mich.)  Press,  Oct.  19.  1921. 

Fighting  Press  Freedom 

The  Chicago  Tribune  has  just  waged  a  successful  battle 
in  court  for  the  freedom  of  a  newspaper  to  criticize  a  city's 
administration,  expose  corruption  wherever  possible  and 
tell  the  facts  about  the  situation  in  the  public  treasury. 
The  Thompson-Lundin  machine  last  spring  filed  suit  for 
the  city  against  the  Tribune  for  $10,000,000  damages, 
the  claim  being  that  the  city's  credit  was  injured  by  the 
revelations  published  in  the  newspaper.  Judge  Harry 
M.  Fisher,  in  dismissing  the  case,  made  it  very  plain  that 
to  hold  the  Tribune  for  its  plain  speech  would  be  a  blow 
at  press  freedom  in  general  and  the  right  of  the  people 
to  be  informed  about  their  government. 

Tammany,  as  represented  in  the  Murphy-Hylan  con- 
trol of  New  York,  has  also  been  trying  to  stifle  the  free 

[16] 


utterance  of  press  opinion.  Recently  the  New  York  city 
hall  issued  a  proclamation  to  the  business  men,  mer- 
chants and  shopkeepers  of  the  city,  informing  them  that 
the  New  York  crime  wave  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
newspapers  had  charged  rotten  administration  with  mak- 
ing the  city  "a  paradise  for  criminals"  and  were  thus 
drawing  lawbreakers  to  prey  upon  citizens.  The  cfty 
hall  deduced  from  this  that  the  dealers  should  "act 
accordingly"  —in  other  words,  withdraw  their  advertising 
—to  scare  the  papers  into  a  state  of  proper  submission 
to  I  he  city  hall.  The  rotten  administration  was  not 
disproved. 

These  two  machine  moves  against  journalism  are  a 
type  of  the  sort  of  sporadic  attack  upon  courageous  pub- 
licity which  has  occurred  ever  since  men  have  found  rea- 
son for  being  afraid  of  the  truth.  The  un trammeled 
newspaper  is  the  public's  great  defense  against  corrup- 
tion; and  if  the  Thompsons  and  Hylans  of  the  land  ever 
succeed  in  such  attempts  against  the  newspapers  of  their 
cities  we  may  as  well  hand  over  our  political  freedom  to 
the  dictator  along  with  our  principles  of  free  speech  and 
free  press. 

GRAND  RAPIDS  (Mich.)  News,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

The  Tribune's  Law  Suit 

In  a  sweeping  decision,  Judge  Harry  M.  Fisher,  of  the 
( 'ircuit  court  at  Chicago,  has  upheld  The  Chicago  Tribune 
as  against  the  city  in  a  suit  for  libel  brought  by  the  latter 
because  of  the  Tribune's  charges  that  the  municipality 
was  bankrupt.  The  Tribune  has  kept  up  a  constant  fight 
on  the  so-called  Thompson  regime,  charging  Thompson 
and  his  followers  with  gross  misapplication  of  funds, 
extravagance  and  misconduct  in  administering  the  affairs 
of  the  city. 

'This  action  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit \ 
and  objects  of  our  institutions,"  read  the  written  opinion     \ 
handed  down. 

"It  fits  in  rather  with  the  genius  of  the  rulers  who  con-  / 
ceived  law,  not  in  the  purity  of  love  for  justice,  but  in  / 
the  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed  power. 


[17] 


"It  will,  therefore,  be  unnecessary  to  consider  the  other 
questions  involved." 

There  is  a  growing  tendency  among  public  servants 
to  consider  the  business  of  public  administration  as  their 
business.  It  is  their  business  to  the  extent  that  they  are 
citizens  and  taxpayers,  but  it  differs  from  a  business 
owned  in  fee  simple  by  an  individual  in  that  it  belongs  to 
the  whole  community,  state  or  nation.  To  prevent  a 
newspaper  from  disclosing  what  goes  on  in  the  conduct 
of  public  affairs  would  be  the  same  as  denying  the  pro- 
prietor the  right  of  access  to  his  own  books. 

The  only  check  that  the  taxpayer  has  on  his  servants 
in  office  is  that  afforded  by  publicity  through  the  columns 
of  his  newspaper.  Most  municipalities  are  unwieldy  in 
their  size.  There  is  no  end  to  the  opportunities  for 
irregular  conduct.  Favoritisms  and  prejudices  are  the 
order  of  the  day.  What  would  happen  to  government 
in  these  days  of  free  and  easy  abandon  if  it  were  not  for 
the  newspapers  only  those  can  conceive  who  can  visualize 
the  worst.  And  goodness  knows  that  Chicago  needs  all 
the  checks  that  can  be  placed  on  a  coterie  of  public 
officials,  who,  whether  the  public  likes  it  or  not,  do  pretty 
much  as  they  please. 

CADILLAC  (Mich.)  News,  Oct.  27,  1921. 

Cities  and  the  Libel  Law 

That  a  newspaper  has  the  right  to  criticize  a  munici- 
pality without  fear  of  being  held  accountable  for  libel  is 
established  by  the  decision  handed  down  by  Judge  Fisher 
of  Chicago  in  deciding  the  suit  brought  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  and  the  Daily  News  by  Mayor  Thomp- 
son. Thompson,  long  the  object  of  attack  on  the  part 
of  both  papers,  brought  suit  against  the  papers  for  ten 
million  dollars,  alleging  that  they  had  printed  false  state- 
ments regarding  Chicago's  financial  standing,  thus  injur- 
ing the  city's  credit.  Mayor  Thompson  sued  in  the 
name  of  the  city,  making  this  the  first  suit  of  the  kind  in 
which  a  city  sought  to  restrict  the  right  to  criticize  its 
corporate  acts. 

The  court  held  that  libel  was  applicable  only  to  private 
persons  or  corporations,  therefore  the  action  of  the  papers 


[18] 


in  criticizing  corporate  acts  of  the  city  was  permissible 
without  fear  of  libel.  This  suit  has  been  watched  with 
groat  interest,  not  only  by  newspapers,  but  by  dishonest 
officials  who  saw  in  a  favorable  decision  for  the  city  of 
( liicago  a  powerful  weapon  to  use  against  the  press,  and 
thus  further  their  own  dishonest  ends.  Had  the  court 
established  the  ruling  that  it  is  possible  to  libel  a  municK 
pality  it  would  be  possible  for  dishonest  officials  to  use 
I  lie  public  funds  to  hide  their  own  misuse  of  their  offices, 
and  no  newspaper  would  dare  expose  their  crookedness. 
A  favorable  decision  by  Judge  Fisher  would  have  provided 
a  shield  for  dishonest  officials  which  would  have  enabled 
(hem  to  continue  their  operations  unchallenged  by  public 
opinion  because  the  press  would  not  dare  bring  them  to 
account. 

A  newspaper's  power  for  good  in  any  community  rests 
upon  the  faith  which  its  readers  have  in  it.  It  must  be 
truthful  and  fair  in  all  its  dealings  with  the  public.  Its 
readers  will  not  long  tolerate  a  newspaper  which  is  un- 
truthful, and  once  the  faith  of  its  readers  is  destroyed  it 
ceases  to  be  an  agent  for  good  in  any  community.  The 
record  of  its  daily  acts  is  spread  upon  its  pages  for  all 
who  care  to  look  at  it.  In  the  interest  of  the  public's 
welfare  it  frequently  is  compelled  to  criticize  the  acts  of 
officials  chosen  by  the  puttlic  to  serve  it.  If  it  were  not 
for  an  honest  and  fearless  press  there  would  be  many 
more  cases  of  dishonesty  on  the  part  of  public  officials, 
and  it  is  therefore  a  matter  for  congratulation  that  a 
court  decides  the  press  has  the  right  to  hold  strictly  to 
account  individuals  who  are  holding  positions  of  public 
trust. 

DULUTH  (Minn.)  Herald,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  Just  Decision 

The  city  of  Chicago,  by  its  own  choice  and  for  its 
sins,  has  a  city  government  that  smells  to  heaven.  The 
better  class  of  Chicago  newspapers  have  fought  it,  and 
in  fighting  did  not  mince  the  words  it  used  as  weapons. 

The  Thompson  regime,  enraged  by  the  publishing  of 
too  much  truth,  had  the  city  bring  enormous  libel  suits 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune.  The  city,  speaking  for 
the  Thompson  gang,  asserted  that  the  charges  of  the 


[19] 


newspaper  had  damaged  the  city's  financial  standing, 
to  the  injury  of  its  credit. 

This  raised  some  very  interesting  questions,  which  the 
Tribune's  attorneys  brought  out  through  a  demurrer  to 
the  complaint.  The  ten  million  dollars  asked  for  would 
of  course  result  in  the  confiscation  and  suppression  of  the 
f  newspaper  if  such  damages  were  awarded.  And  the 
press,  they  contended,  should  not  be  prevented  by  such 
means  from  attacking  evils  in  government. 

On  the  last  point  Judge  Harry  Fisher,  before  whom 
the  case  came,  has  sustained  the  demurrer  and  thrown 
the  case  out  of  court.  And  by  so  doing  probably  he 
has  thrown  hundreds  of  other  such  cases  out  of  court; 
for  if  a  city  can  be  legally  damaged  by  newspaper  at- 
tempts to  overthrow  their  corrupt  and  inefficient  govern- 
ments, then  either  newspapers  would  keep  still  or  the 
courts  would  be  busy  collecting  libel  damages. 

'This  action,"  said  the  judge,  "is  not  in  harmony 
with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions." 
Wise  judge!  Sound  decision!  It  is  a  victory  not  only 
for  a  free  press,  but  for  sound  government  and  decency 
in  public  affairs. 

CROOKSTON  (Minn.)  Times,  Oct.  26, 

Press  Freedom 

The  suit  for  $10,000,000  damages  brought  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  by  Mayor  Thompson  of  Chicago  has 
served  a  good  purpose  by  pointing  out  once  more,  in  an 
emphatic  manner,  the  function  and  merits  of  the  news- 
paper press  in  general. 

The  suit  was  dismissed  by  the  court  as  an  unwarranted 
attack  on  the  freedom  of  the  press.  Because  the  Tribune 
criticized  the  mayor's  conduct  of  city  affairs,  the  mayor, 
identifying  himself  with  the  "city"  in  a  way  not  un- 
common among  office-holders  of  long  tenure,  tried  to  put 
the  Tribune  out  of  business.  Judge  Fisher,  in  upholding 
I  lie  right  of  the  defendant  to  publish  its  criticism,  declared: 
'The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  I  lie  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their 


[20] 


power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force 
which  unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts  of 
public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would 
continue  undismayed  and  public  offices  would  be  the  rich 
reward  of  the  unscrupulous  demagogue." 

Tliis  is  the  literal  truth,  as  every  thinking  citizen  doubt- 
less agrees.  The  law  and  public  opinion  both  recogni/c 
that,  whatever  may  be  the  possibilities  of  the  press  abus- 
ing its  great  powers,  they  fear  far  less  than  the  dangers 
that  would  spring  from  the  repression  of  honest  comment. 

MANITOWOC  (Wis.)  Herald,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

The  Tribune's  Suit 

The  City  of  Chicago  is  suing  The  Chicago  Tribune  for 
printing  the  alleged  fact  that  the  city  was  "broke."  It 
was  claimed  that  this  is  libelous  in  that  it  would  tend  to 
injure  the  credit  of  the  city.  If  it  was  so,  it  was  the 
plain  duty  of  the  Tribune,  as  a  public  servant,  to  publish 
the  facts  in  the  case.  If  the  city  wins  its  suit,  it  may 
establish  a  dangerous  precedent.  Dangerous  to  the 
people  of  the  country,  who  rely  on  their  newspapers  for 
what  information  they  have  regarding  the  conditions  of 
their  government.  It  may  have  been  so,  or  it  may  not 
have  been  so,  but  certainly  there  was  some  reason  for 
the  publication  of  the  statement.  Granted  that  it  may 
have  had  a  political  motive,  and  that  it  was  not  true 
that  the  city  of  Chicago  was  "broke,"  still  the  publication 
of  a  public  matter  of  such  importance  would  be  calculated 
to  stir  up  a  considerable  public  interest  in  the  condition 
of  the  finances  of  the  city.  If  there  was  nothing  the 
matter  with  them  the  Tribune's  statement  could  easily 
be  shown  by  its  opponents  to  be  false  and  misleading. 
If  it  was  true,  it  was  the  plain  duty  of  the  paper  to  say 
so.  But  to  make  statements  regarding  public  matters 
libelous  is  to  put  a  muzzle  upon  the  press  which  will 
result  in  the  suppression  of  news,  which  will  effectively 
prevent  the  publication  of  any  news  in  any  city  liable 
to  be  detrimental  to  the  administration.  Surely  if  all 
that  is  necessary  for  city  officials  to  do  in  the  event 
of  publication  of  statements  regarding  their  actions  is  to 
go  into  court  and  sue  for  libel,  very  few  newspapers  will 


[21] 


print  their  views  on  public  matters.  Public  officials, 
often  honest  enough,  but  placed  in  a  position  in  which  it 
is  so  easy  to  dispose  of  other  people's  money,  will  be 
protected  against  exposure,  and  the  honest  man  will 
have  considerable  difficulty  in  getting  his  argument 
before  the  people.  The  Chicago  officials,  having  played 
hob  on  so  many  occasions  with  the  money  of  the  tax- 
payers, naturally  resent  any  interference  with  operations. 
But  the  people  should  be  alive  to  the  dangers  of  suppres- 
sion of  the  press,  the  freedom  of  which  is  guaranteed 
under  the  constitution. 

Wausau  Record-Herald,  reprinted  in 
MARSHFIELD  (Wis.)  News,  Sept.  26, 

The  Tribune's  Libel  Suit 

The  city  of  Chicago  has  sued  The  Chicago  Tribune  for 
ten  million  dollars.  If  it  wins  the  suit  the  Tribune  will  be 
practically  broke,  but  that  eventuality  is  so  remote  that 
the  people  chiefly  concerned  are  probably  not  worrying 
much  about  it.  Whatever  the  facts  in  the  case  may  be, 
the  general  opinion  throughout  the  country  is  that  the 
city  of  Chicago  can't  stand  the  publicity  in  court  which 
would  be  necessary  to  prove  anything  against  the  Tribune. 

The  suit  may  be  accepted  as  a  gesture,  a  gesture  not 
meant  to  impress  the  country  at  large  but  a  certain  set 
of  ignorant  voters  in  the  city  of  Chicago  who  insist  upon 
displaying  the  depths  of  that  ignorance  by  repeatedly 
returning  to  power  city  officials  who  not  only  fail  to  give 
them  a  good  government  but  who  make  that  government 
cost  more  than  a  good  government  should. 

Outside  of  the  city  of  Chicago  the  main  interest  in  this 
suit  is  not  whether  the  Tribune  has  said  some  things  that 
were  not  true  about  the  city  government  but  whether 
the  privilege  of  the  press  is  to  be  in  any  way  hindered  or 
abridged.  It  is  certainly  indispensable  to  good  municipal 
government  in  a  city  like  Chicago  that  the  press  have  the 
freest  possible  hand  in  criticizing  abuses. 

The  present  suit  attempts  to  overthrow  this  privilege 
under  the  contention  that  the  city  has  suffered  material 
damage  owing  to  the  evil  repute  of  the  city  government 
which  has  come  about  through  the  efforts  of  the  Tribune. 


[22] 


If  a  group  of  city  officials  are  permitted  to  stifle  criticism 
by  a  device  of  this  kind  the  conditions  of  municipal 
government  in  the  large  cit:es  of  this  country,  which  are 
hnd  enough  as  it  is,  will  soon  become  utterly  intolerable. 

FOND  DU  LAC  (Wis.)  Reporter,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

The  decision  of  the  courts  in  the  libel  suit  instituted 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune  by  the  City  of  Chicago,  is 
not  only  a  victory  for  the  Tribune  but  also  for  a  free 
press  —  something  guaranteed  by  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  but  which  public  officials  and  even  courts 
some  times  have  sought  to  override  or  set  at  naught. 
In  the  Tribune  case  the  courts  held  that  a  city  govern- 
ment could  not  be  libeled  and  that  the  Tribune  had  a 
right  to  criticize  the  financial  condition  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  and  in  so  doing  was  but  fulfilling  its  mission  as  a 
newspaper  and  a  guardian  of  the  public  interests.  Offi- 
cials are  all  too  often  inclined  to  imagine  when  they 
attain  office  that  they  are  supreme  and  are  answerable  to 
nobody  during  their  tenure  of  office.  They  consider 
their  acts  and  official  records  as  matters  concerning 
themselves  only,  but  all  such  acts  are  open  to  public 
criticism  by  the  press  and  all  official  records  are  at  all 
times  accessible  to  the  press  despite  official  contentions 
to  the  contrary,  as  the  press  is  the  representative  of  the 
public  and  as  such  has  a  right  to  criticize  and  demand  in 
the  public's  name.  Most  of  all  it  is  the  guardian  of 
public  interests,  a  guardian  without  which  officialdom 
in  many  instances  would  run  amuck  with  a  vengeance 
whenever  it  so  desired. 


EAU  CLAIRE  (Wis.)  Telegraph,  Oct.  18, 

In  the  suit  nominally  by  the  City  of  Chicago  against 
two  Chicago  newspapers  for  allegel  libel,  the  court  held 
that  no  such  suit  could  be  sustained  in  this  day  and  age 
and  hence  threw  the  case  out.  If  a  city  could  maintain 
such  an  action  for  damages  on  account  of  newspaper 
comment  on  governmental  affairs,  there  would  be  an 
end  to  press  criticism  of  public  wrongs  except  by  would- 
be  journalistic  martyrs. 


[23] 


GREEN  BAY  (Wis.)  Gazette,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press  Protected 

In  sustaining  the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  to 
the  $10,000,000  libel  suit  brought  against  it  by  the  cor- 
poration counsel  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago, 
Circuit  Judge  Fisher  has  performed  notable  service  for 
freedom  of  the  press.  His  decision  throws  the  case  out 
of  court  as  constituting  no  cause  for  action.  The  judge's 
excellent  conception  of  the  real  issues  involved  in  the 
suit  is  shown  in  his  comment  that  it  is  an  action  "not  in 
harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  con- 
stitution," and  that  "it  fits  in  rather  with  the  genius  of 
the  rulers  who  conceived  law  not  in  the  purity  of  love 
for  justice  but  in  the  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed 
power."  This  is  a  clear  distinction  between  popular 
government  and  boss  rule.  The  machine  in  the  city  of 
Chicago  built  up  by  the  Thompson-Lundin  forces  seeks 
exactly  that  "undisturbed  power"  which  will  permit  it  to 
despotically  control  municipal  affairs.  It  is  under  just 
such  power  that  cities  are  looted,  taxpayers  robbed, 
trusts  betrayed,  public  morals  debauched.  It  is  under 
such  power  that  graft  and  corruption  thrive.  It  is 
precisely  the  character  of  Tweed  government  and  later 
of  Tammany  government  in  New  York  City. 

If  these  political  machines,  bent  upon  the  seizing  of 
arbitrary  power  and  upon  the  exploitations  that  go  with 
it,  could  shield  themselves  against  attack  and  exposure 
by  bringing  libel  suits  against  the  press  in  the  name  of  the 
city,  thereby  avoiding  personal  and  financial  responsi- 
bility, the  people  would  be  robbed  of  all  protection.  As 
the  court  says,  the  honest  official  seldom  fears  criticism. 
He  answers  argument  with  argument,  but  the  dishonest 
official  is  restrained  by  the  fear  of  laying  his  character 
open  to  judicial  inquiry.  To  permit  him  to  cloak  his 
iniquities  by  labeling  suits  with  the  name  of  the  munici- 
pality would  be  equivalent  to  muzzling  the  press  through 
libel  actions  ad  infinitum. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  charged  that  the  Thompson 
administration  had  brought  the  city  to  the  verge  of 
bankruptcy.  Whether  this  is  precisely  true  or  not,  there 
can  be  no  question  as  to  the  public  service  it  was  rendering 
the  city.  If  Mayor  Thompson  has  been  personally 


[24] 


libeled  that  is  a  different  matter  and  is  of  course  action- 
able, but  that  could  have  nothing  to  do  with  a  suit  in- 
stituted by  the  city.  To  hold  otherwise  would  be  to 
destroy  the  very  foundations  on  which  honest,  responsible 
government  rests,  while  the  freedom  of  the  press,  easily 
the  most  potent  factor  for  safeguarding  our  institutions, 
would  be  put  under  the  heel  of  politicians,  gangsters  and 
grafters. 

The  Tribune  has  won  its  first  great  victory  in  its  battle 
with  boss  government  in  Chicago.  That  it  and  I  lie- 
Daily  News,  which  has  taken  an  equal  part  in  the  cru- 
sade, will  win  other  battles  and  eventually  clean  out  the 
Augean  stables  follows  as  a  matter  of  course.  Politicians 
of  the  kind  that  rule  Chicago  cannot  stand  up  against  an 
aroused,  fighting  press.  Publicity  will  be  their  undoing. 
Nationally  considered,  there  is  a  state  of  perpetual  war- 
fare between  the  forces  which  would  deprave  govern- 
ment and  the  press.  At  times  these  forces  loom  large 
but  the  newspapers  "get"  them  eventually.  The 
Chicago  decision  is  a  victory  for  constitutional  liberty 
and  for  every  municipality  in  America,  for  without  free- 
dom of  the  press  assured  there  would  be  no  security 
against  corrupt  and  vicious  government  anywhere.  The 
principle  upheld  is  of  the  first  magnitude  in  the  perpetua- 
tion of  our  institutions. 

JANESVILLE  (Wis.)  Gazette,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Newspapers  and  Criticism  of  Officials 

Far-reaching  and  effective  will  be  the  decision  uphold- 
ing the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  in  the  suit  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  against  the  newspaper,  charging  libel 
and  seeking  to  collect  $10,000,000  damages.  Of  course 
the  "city"  itself  really  did  not  sue.  A  city  is  its  people. 
The  city  officials  sued  in  the  name  of  the  city,  but  in 
doing  so  sued  itself,  for  the  Tribune  is  also  a  part  of  the 
city  through  its  individual  ownership.  The  aggrieved 
parties  were  the  criticized  officials.  Involved  also  was 
the  right  of  a  newspaper  to  criticize,  and  to  discuss  offi- 
cials and  their  acts.  In  1908,  when  the  New  York  World 
and  Indianapolis  News  brought  out  some  facts  in  reference 
to  the  activity  of  Douglas  Robinson,  brother-in-law  of 
President  Roosevelt,  an  effort  was  made  to  sue  the 


[25] 


papers  and  hale  them  to  Washington  for  trial  under  the 
assumption  that  the  World  and  the  Indianapolis  News 
circulated  in  the  national  capital. 

It  was  almost  a  parallel  case,  as  the  government  itself 
was  held  the  aggrieved  party  plaintiff.  Federal  Judge 
A.  B.  Anderson  dismissed  the  case,  holding  that  the 
defendants  could  not  be  carried  to  Washington  to  be 
tried  in  an  antagonistic  atmosphere  where  the  archaic 
libel  laws  of  the  District  of  Columbia  were  in  force,  and 
also  said  something  that  every  public  official  and  every 
newspaper  should  know: 

"It  is  the  duty  of  a  public  newspaper  *  *  *  to  tell 
the  people,  its  subscribers,  its  readers,  the  facts  that  it  may 
find  out  about  public  affairs  and  matters  of  public  interest. 
It  is  its  duty  to  write  and  draw  inferences  from  the  facts 
known." 

But  Judge  Fisher,  who  upheld  the  demurrer  of  The 
Tribune  Company  and  dismissed  the  city  suit  against  the 
newspaper,  went  even  farther  in  his  statement  as  to  the 
function  of  a  newspaper  in  its  attitude  toward  public 
matters. 

"But  for  it  [the  press],"  says  the  court,  "the  acts  of 
public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  con- 
tinue undismayed,  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich 
reward  of  the  unscrupulous  demagogue.  Knowledge  of 
public  matters  would  be  hidden  in  the  bosoms  of  those 
who  make  politics  their  personal  business  for  gain  or 
glorification." 

There  is  one  great  corrector  of  evil — publicity  It  is 
the  only  thing  that  the  people  of  a  free  government,  a 
government  based  on  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual 
guaranteed  by  his  right  to  the  ballot,  may  depend  upon. 
For  that  publicity,  the  public  must  look  to  the  newspaper. 
A  newspaper  might  well  find  the  easiest  way  to  let  things 
slide  along  with  no  mention  of  the  derelictions,  minimize 
the  waste,  or  it  can  be  constructively  helpful  in  calling 
attention  to  places  where  the  funds  of  the  city — that 
means  the  men  and  women  and  children  who  make  up 
the  population  of  the  city — are  being  wasted  and  officials 
are  lax  in  measures  to  correct  evils  that  are  patent. 

Courts  untrammeled  nor  moved  by  politics  or  political 
considerations  and  a  free  press  are  the  two  great  bul- 


[26] 


warks,    the    protective    fortifications,    of    the    American 
republic  of  the  United  States. 

MILWAUKEE  (Wis.)  Sentinel,  Oct.  19,  1!K>1. 

The  Duty  of  Free  Speech 

Bearing  in  mind  the  possibility  of  an  appeal  to  a 
higher  court,  it  may  be  said  that  the  decision  in  the  suit 
brought  by  Mayor  Thompson  against  Chicago  newspapers 
Tias  resulted  in  a  restatement  of  certain  fundamental 
doctrines  that  is  not  likely  to  be  reversed  if  it  should 
come  up  for  review  by  another  tribunal. 

Briefly,  the  issue  turned  on  the  question  so  hotly  de- 
bated during  the  war:  "How  far  is  a  citizen  entitled  to 
go  in  criticizing  his  government?"  In  the  present  case, 
the  governmental  agency  that  felt  aggrieved  was  the 
municipality  of  Chicago,  but  the  same  reasoning  would 
apply  to  state  and  national  administrations.  That  the 
newspapers  were  selected  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  charge 
of  having  impaired  the  city's  credit  by  their  criticism  is 
also  nonessential,  for  the  same  liability  would  attach  to 
criticisms  uttered  by  individuals  in  conversation. 

In  defining  the  limits  of  justifiable  free  speech  thev 
court  ruled  against  extremists  of  two  opposite  schools. 
There  is  little  comfort  in  the  decision  for  hidebound 
officialdom  which  inclines  to  the  bureaucratic  and  pa- 
ternalistic view  that  the  government  knows  better  what 
is  good  for  the  people  than  the  people  themselves.  This 
idea,  the  court  finds,  originates  in  a  "lustful  passion  for 
undisturbed  power."  If  every  critical  remark  were  just 
ground  for  harassing  the  critic  with  a  lawsuit,  "then 
public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most 
effective  instruments  with  which  to  silence  their  enemies." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  wail  of  the  radicals  who  havey 
been  so  prolific  in  their  abuse  of  our  government  during 
the  last  few  years  is  cut  short  by  a  sharp  reminder  that 
there  are  "fields  in  which  all  who  are  decent  and  possess  a 
sense  of  reverence  and  loyalty  have  agreed  it  would  be 
overstepping  the  bounds  of  freedom  to  travel  without 
restraint,  namely,  blasphemy,  immorality  and  sedition." 

A  sense  of  balance  in  interpreting  constitutional  lib- 
erties must  rest  on  good  will  toward  the  government. 
The  citizen  whose  heart  is  in  the  right  place  will  agree 

[27] 


with  the  court  in  holding  that  so  long  as  he  is  not  "incit- 
ing a  breach  of  the  peace,  he  is  not  only  within  his  abso- 
lute right,  but  is  performing  a  public  duty"  in  using  free 
speech  in  the  way  it  was  intended  to  be  used :  to  keep  the 
government  close  to  the  people. 

MANITOWOC  (Wis.)  Herald,  Oct.  24,  1921. 

Press  and  Government 

Popular  rights  and  political  efficiency  are  both  upheld* 
by  the  decision  of  a  Chicago  judge,  throwing  out  of  court 
the  $10,000,000  suit  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune 
by  the  mayor  of  the  city.  The  action  was  inspired  by 
criticism  of  the  mayor.  Though  drastic,  the  court  held 
that  such  criticism  was  a  legitimate  function  of  a  free 
press — a  verdict  in  which  public  opinion  will  probably 
concur,  regardless  of  the  character  of  the  litigants  them- 
selves. 

The  need  of  freedom  in  printing  news  and  commenting 
on  it  becomes  greater  as  communities  grow  and  public 
business,  like  all  other  business,  becomes  more  complex. 
The  newspaper  is  a  sort  of  responsible  middleman  be- 
tween the  public  and  its  officials,  representing  the  interest 
of  the  former  while  closely  observing  the  latter,  recording 
their  acts  and  holding  them  to  strict  account.  It  is  a 
great  power  which  the  newspaper  wields,  but  there  is 
little  danger  of  its  being  abused  more  than  momentarily. 
Its  work  is  all  public,  and  so  the  public  itself  is  in  position 
at  all  times  to  hold  it  to  its  duty,  prospering  it  by  support 
or  destroying  it  by  disapproval. 

The  press  has  become,  therefore,  a  powerful  though 
unofficial  organ  of  government.  Intelligent  popular 
government  would  be  impossible  without  it.  Continuous 
progress  in  government  is  possible  mainly  because,  while 
public  servants  come  and  go,  the  press  is  permanent, 
forever  on  the  job  of  public  service,  translating  public 
will  into  public  action. 


[28] 


Ilolyoke  (Mass.)  Transcript,  reprinted  in 
BARRON  (Wis.)  News,  Nov.  25 

Newspaper  Rights  and  Duties 

Volumes  have  been  written  about  the  power  of  the 
press  and,  doubtless,  volumes  will  continue  to  be  written 
to  the  end  of  time.  Hut  Judge  Fisher  of  the  Circuit 
Court  at  Chicago,  in  the  decision  in  which  he  ruled  in 
favor  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  in  a  libel  suit  brought 
against  it  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  but  in 
reality  by  a  political  gang  in  the  city,  which  resented 
the  fearless  expose  of  its  weaknesses  by  the  defendant 
paper,  crowded  within  the  limits  of  his  decision  some 
thoughts  that  come  home  with  great  force  to  the  mind 
of  the  true  newspaper  man.  Here  is  one  of  unusual 
power: 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world, 
and  to  a  great  extent  brings  humanity  in  contact  with 
all  its  parts.  It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the 
appeal  of  the  suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts 
of  our  officials  and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have 
it  in  their  power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is 
the  force  which  unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it, 
the  acts  of  public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  im- 
postors would  continue  undismayed  and  public  office 
would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupulous  demagogue." 

And  a  little  later  Judge  Fisher  expressed  in  clear-cut 
fashion  a  principle  that  lies  deep  in  the  mind  of  every 
editor  worthy  of  the  name.  It  is  that  a  newspaper 
which  makes  it  a  practice  to  mislead  or  misinform  its 
readers  cannot  prosper.  Said  Judge  Fisher: 

"It  cannot  long  indulge  in  falsehoods,  however,  with- 
out losing  that  confidence  from  which  alone  come  its 
power,  its  prestige  and  its  reward.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  harm  which  would  certainly  result  to  the  community 
from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity  is 
incalculable." 

The  court  said  that  if  the  suit  could  be  maintained 
"then  public  officials  would  have  in  their  power  one  of 
the  most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate 
the  press  and  silence  their  enemies.  It  would  be  a 
weapon  to  be  used  over  the  head  of  everyone  who  dared 
print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 


[29] 


CLEVELAND  (Ohio)  News,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

New  York  and  Chicago  Mayors  Try 
Suppressing  Freedom  of  the  Press 

Disapproving  the  conduct  of  municipal  affairs  in  the 
last  four  years,  many  citizens  of  New  York  and  most  of 
the  newspapers  there  favor  the  election  of  a  new  mayor. 
This  displeases  Mayor  John  F.  Hylan,  who  hopes  to  be 
re-elected  in  November.  It  seems  to  make  him  particu- 
larly "mad"  that  newspapers  should  dare  to  criticize 
even  a  mayor.  So  he  has  given  an  interesting  exhibition 
of  endeavor  to  use  his  official  position  to  punish  the 
papers  guilty  of  finding  fault  with  his  official  acts. 

Mayor  Hylan  has  promulgated  a  proclamation  aimed 
at  the  offending  journals.  In  it  he  accuses  them  of 
advertising  New  York  as  "a  paradise  for  criminals"  and 
"a  gold  mine  for  thieves."  He  speaks  of  the  "hate- 
crazed  newspaper  publishers"  who  oppose  his  re-election. 
He  wants  citizens  to  curb  those  publishers.  He  calls  on 
"business  men,  merchants  and  shop  keepers"  in  particular 
to  "think  this  over,  place  the  blame  where  it  belongs— 
and  act  accordingly." 

Mayors'  proclamations  usually  are  issued  by  publica- 
tion in  the  newspapers — the  only  way  in  which  they  can 
be  widely  and  promptly  circulated.  But  would  the  New 
York  papers  publish  a  mayoral  proclamation  suggesting 
that  those  papers  be  avoided  by  readers,  blacklisted  by 
advertisers,  boycotted,  mobbed  or  otherwise  curbed? 
The  papers  would  and  did,  with  glee.  All  five  morning 
papers  published  the  proclamation,  though  four  of  them 
are  anti-Hylan.  The  only  surprise  is  that  a  paper 
politically  friendly  to  the  mayor  should  have  joined  in 
the  exposure  of  Hylan  temperament. 

Now  consider  the  Chicago  instance.  It  may  be  less 
amusing,  but  more  instructive.  We  gather  that  the 
city  government  of  Chicago,  like  that  of  Cleveland  and 
almost  every  other  city,  has  been  short  of  funds.  Proba- 
bly it  has  disliked  to  economize,  as  individuals  and 
private  businesses  must,  and  has  taxed  its  citizens  as 
heavily  as  possible.  Apparently  it  has  also  been  borrow- 
ing money,  or  trying  to  borrow  it,  rather  than  stop  some 
of  its  spending  and  try  to  live  within  its  income. 


[30] 


We  suppose  Chicago  newspapers,  feeling  that  the  tax- 
payers' interests  were  not  being  sufficiently  taken  into 
account,  protested  against  some  of  the  taxings,  borrow- 
ings and  spendings — as  newspapers  always  have  done  in 
American  cities.  We  should  think  they  might,  consider- 
ing that  Chicago's  tax  levy  comes  to  $84,973,000  a  year, 
or  almost  ten  times  Cleveland's,  though  her  population 
is  much  less  than  four  times  Cleveland's  and  her  total 
real  estate  tax  valuation  or  duplicate  is  about  the  same 
($1,653,171,000  for  Chicago  to  $1,600,000,000  for  Cleve- 
land). 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  Chicago's  foremost  newspaper, 
has  been  foremost  in  condemning  the  taxing  and  spend- 
ing, we  take  it.  At  any  rate,  the  Tribune  has  been 
singled  out  for  attack  by  the  city  administration  and  the 
attack  has  taken  the  curious  form  of  a  libel  suit,  brought 
in  the  city's  name,  against  the  Tribune  for  $10,000,000. 
The  city  government  alleges  that  it  has  been  damaged 
to  that  extent  because  the  newspaper's  comments  on  the 
conduct  of  public  business  have  injured  the  city's  credit 
and  hampered  the  city  administration  in  borrowing  more 
money.  As  the  dispatches  point  out,  the  $10,000,000 
demanded  amounts  to  virtually  the  total  value  of  the 
Tribune's  physical  property.  Mayor  William  Hale 
Thompson's  administration  is,  in  effect,  asking  the  courts 
to  put  Chicago's  biggest  newspaper  to  death  for  daring 
to  defend  the  people  against  the  extravagance  of  the 
taxspenders. 

"Only  arbitrary,  oppressive  or  corrupt  power  has 
sought  to  enslave  or  destroy  the  free  utterance  of  the 
press,"  Attorney  Wey mouth  Kirkland  told  the  court  in 
opening  the  argument  for  the  defense  and  reviewing 
tyranny's  attempts  to  suppress  freedom  of  speech  since 
the  days  of  the  Roman  empire.  "The  city's  form  of 
attack  is  novel  and,  in  America  at  least,  without  prece- 
dent. But  the  end  and  animus  are  the  same  as  marked 
the  whole  course  of  obstruction  to  free  expression— 
namely,  to  protect  entrenched  authority  from  inquiry 
and  criticism." 

Where  the  New  York  exhibition  is  only  diverting,  the 
Chicago  affair  carries  a  serious  suggestion  of  danger. 
In  this  case  the  court  may  handle  the  absurd  case  as  it 
deserves,  but  who  can  tell  what  another  court  may  do  in 


[31] 


another  case?  Courts  sometimes  give  strange  decisions 
and  do  not  always  seem  to  give  the  public  interest  much 
consideration — as  Clevelanders  need  not  be  reminded. 
In  addition,  judges  may  be  subject  to  political  influence 
wielded  by  mayors  or  other  officeholders  seeking  to  sup- 
press public  criticism  of  their  acts.  Such  efforts  to 
muzzle  newspapers  might  even  command  the  sympathy 
of  judges  trained  to  regard  any  adverse  criticism  of  them- 
selves as  wrong,  unlawful  and  punishable  at  their  pleasure. 
In  fact,  contempt-of-court  proceedings  have  hitherto 
constituted  the  greatest  and  almost  the  only  menace  to 
that  freedom  of  the  press  which  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States  guarantees  as  essential  to  freedom  of  the 
people. 

The  mayors  of  New  York  and  Chicago  may  not  know 
it,  but  an  attack  on  one  is  an  attack  on  the  other.  The 
American  people  know  it.  They  will  fight  as  hard  as 
may  be  necessary  to  overthrow  any  who  attempt  to 
chain  and  gag  the  newspapers  of  America.  For  they 
realize  that  their  liberty  is  at  stake  and  that  it  would  be 
lost  if  their  newspapers  could  be  suppressed  for  ventur- 
ing to  tell  them  the  truth  about  the  acts  of  their  elected 
servants,  ambitious  to  turn  masters! 

WASHINGTON  (Ohio)  Herald,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

Full  Publicity 

The  trial  of  the  case,  in  the  courts  of  Cook  county, 
Illinois,  in  which  Chicago  city  officials  are  seeking  to  re- 
cover from  The  Chicago  Tribune  ten  million  dollars  on 
account  of  a  publication  appearing  in  that  newspaper 
which,  it  is  alleged,  libeled  them,  is  calculated  to  make 
us  all  do  a  little  thinking. 

We  are  not  familiar  with  the  facts  forming  the  basis 
for  that  suit,  and  not  until  the  case  is  finally  disposed  of 
would  it  be  proper  to  comment  on  them  anyway.  The 
beginning  of  that  trial,  however,  does  bring  forcibly  to  our 
attention  a  very  manifest  tendency  on  the  part  of  officials, 
in  many  sections  of  the  country,  to  restrict  publicity. 

There  has  grown  up  a  very  decided  inclination  to  keep 
official  action  in  the  dark,  to  keep  the  public  in  absolute 
ignorance  as  to  all  facts,  and  to  briefly  and  formally  an- 
nounce the  official  conclusion. 


[32] 


(Generally  speaking,  the  people  are  entitled  to  all  the 
facts  upon  which  official  action  is  predicated.  There  are 
no  rulers  in  this  country  of  ours.  The  very  keystone  of 
our  arch  of  free  government  is  publicity — a  free  press  and 
free  speech  and  open  sessions  of  all  court  and  official  pro- 
ceedings. 

Generally  speaking,  that  is  true  and  yet  sometimes 
when  we  see  how  designing  and  selfish  politicians  of  petty 
dimensions  can  misstate  and  willfully  pervert  facts,  the 
nonsensical  conclusions  they  urge  as  logical,  the  gullibil- 
ity of  so  many  people,  we  are  inclined  to  doubt  the  wis- 
dom of  adhering  to  a  literal  insistence  on  publicity  guar- 
antees. 

Right  now  there  is  a  hue  and  cry  being  raised  demand- 
ing full  publicity  during  the  sessions  of  the  disarmament 
conference. 

Naturally  we  all  want  to  know  what  is  going  on.  We 
do  not  take  kindly  to  any  behind  the  scenes  activity.  We 
don't  relish  "canned"  conclusions  of  officials  and  yet  we 
want  success  to  attend  the  conference  more  than  we  do 
to  satisfy  a  justifiable  curiosity.  When  we  think  what 
may  happen  when  the  two  by  four  political  wiseacres  get 
all  the  detailed  facts  and  discussions  in  advance  of  final 
action,  we  fear  that  they  may  be  able  to  stir  up  a  very 
dangerous  misunderstanding  again  as  they  have  done 
before. 

YOUNGSTOWN  (Ohio)  Telegram,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Escaping  the  Gag 

Mayor  "Big  Bill"  Thompson's  unique  plan  for  muz- 
zling all  the  Chicago  newspapers  except  the  ones  that  laud 
"Big  Bill"  has  failed.  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  Chicago 
News  have  won  the  suits  brought  against  them  for  tra- 
ducing the  fair  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago  $20,000,000 
worth— $10,000,000  in  each  instance. 

In  throwing  the  suit  out  the  court  did  not  pass  on  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  charges  made  by  the  two  newspa- 
pers. It  merely  ruled  that  the  city  as  a  corporate  person 
cannot  bring  suit  for  wounded  sensibilities  or  injured 
credit.  As  mayor  of  the  city  for  the  last  six  years  "Big 
Bill"  Thompson  is  chiefly  responsible  for  the  credit  and 
good  name  of  the  city  and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  him 


[33] 


bringing  suit  in  his  own  name  against  the  offending  news- 
papers if  he  believes  the  charges  made  by  them  are  un- 
true. 

The  mayor  has  no  intention  of  bringing  such  suit. 
The  chances  of  victory  are  too  slight.  He  will  have  to 
hunt  up  some  new  scheme  for  destroying  the  freedom  of 
the  press. 

YOUNGSTOWN  (Ohio)  Vindicator,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

In  sustaining  the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune 
to  the  $10,000,000  libel  suit  brought  by  the  city  of 
Chicago,  Judge  Fisher  took  the  only  course  possible 
under  the  circumstances.  Chicago  officials  sued  the 
Tribune  and  the  Daily  News  on  the  ground  that  the 
criticism  by  these  two  papers  of  the  city's  financial 
administration  had  injured  the  city's  credit.  Judge 
Fisher  held  that  if  the  suit  could  be  maintained,  "then 
public  officials  would  have  in  their  power  one  of  the 
most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the 
press  and  silence  their  enemies.  It  would  be  a  weapon 
to  be  held  over  the  head  of  everyone  who  dared  print 
or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 

"Freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  of  the  press  were, 
at  the  very  inception  of  our  government  regarded  as  in- 
dispensable," Judge  Fisher  {remarked,  adding  that  the 
city's  attempt  to  restrict  them  was  "not  in  harmony 
with  the  genius,  spirit,  and  objects  of  our  institutions." 
He  added  a  warning,  however,  which  many  newspaper- 
men need.  "The  press,"  he  said,  "cannot  long  indulge  in 
falsehoods  without  losing  that  confidence  from  which 
alone  come  its  power,  its  prestige  and  its  reward.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  harm  which  would  certainly  result 
to  the  community  from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by 
fear  of  publicity  is  incalculable." 

DAYTON  (Ohio)  Herald,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press 

The  action  of  Judge  Fisher  of  Chicago,  in  throwing 
out  of  court  the  action  brought  by  the  city  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune,  in  which  $10,000,000  for  libel  was 
sought,  is  in  spirit  and  harmony  with  American  customs 


[34] 


and  traditions.  The  day  when  the  press  can  be  muzzled 
is  past,  if,  indeed,  it  ever  generally  existed  here  in  America. 

The  city  of  Chicago  claimed  the  Tribune  had  libeled 
it  by  printing  the  statement  that  it  was  bankrupt.  In 
support  of  its  plea  for  damages  it  claimed  that  the  state- 
ment had  so  injured  its  standing  and  credit  that  its  bonds 
no  longer  found  attractive  markets.  The  Tribune,  by 
demurrer  to  the  suit,  maintained  that  no  cause  of  action 
properly  existed. 

In  dismissing  the  case  Judge  Fisher  wisely  ruled  that 
it  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  and  object  of 
American  institutions,  but  belonged  to  that  day  when 
monarchs  promulgated  laws  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
out  their  passion  for  undisturbed  power.  He  refused  to 
try  the  case  on  its  merits,  because  it  had  no  merits. 

The  decision  will  be  universally  approved  in  free 
America.  The  freedom  of  speech  guaranteed  by  the 
constitution  means  freedom  of  speech  for  the  individual 
and  for  the  newspapers  which  speak  for  him.  The  news- 
paper is  a  vital  element  of  free  government.  To  limit  its 
proper  criticism  of  individuals  in  the  public  service  for 
wrongs  brought  about  by  that  service,  is  inconceivable. 
In  that  case  the  individual  would  be  put  above  his 
work.  He  would  be  free  to  act  as  he  pleased,  to  serve 
the  interests  he  desired  to  serve  and  to  encumber  govern- 
ment with  obligations  which  the  people  who  compose 
government  instantly  would  disapprove  and  repudiate 
if  they  were  given  the  opportunity. 

The  newspaper  is  the  bulwark  of  free  government,  the 
refuge  of  right  and  the  enemy  of  wrong.  It  is  the 
guardian  of  the  public  will  and  so  long  as  free  govern- 
ment endures,  it  cannot  be  limited  in  the  proper  func- 
tions it  must  enjoy  in  order  to  be  free  to  carry  out  the 
will  of  a  free  people,  unfettered  in  spoken  or  written 
word. 

The  American  press  is  free,  and  it  must  be  kept  free. 

CLEVELAND  (Ohio)  News,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Newspapers  Still  Free 

The  constitution  of  the  United  States  means  what  it 
says  as  to  the  freedom  of  the  press.  American  newspa- 
pers may  tell  the  truth,  even  about  politicians  in  office, 


[35] 


and  not  have  to  shut  up  shop  on  demand  of  the  angry 
politicians.  If  a  city  government  is  conducted  extrava- 
gantly, recklessly  or  badly,  the  people  of  that  city  may 
learn  about  it  through  their  newspapers,  since  the  news- 
papers are  not  to  be  intimidated  by  fear  of  having  their 
plants  taken  from  them. 

All  this  has  just  been  decided  by  an  American  court, 
by  Judge  Fisher  of  Chicago.  So  the  statements  in  the 
foregoing  paragraph  are  not  such  self-evident  truths, 
such  simple  facts  of  American  liberty,  that  they  could 
be  taken  for  granted  in  the  absence  of  judicial  decision 
upholding  them. 

The  case  decided  by  Judge  Fisher  was  the  $10,000,000 
suit  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  recently 
mentioned  in  these  columns.  The  action  was  brought 
in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago  by  Mayor  William 
Hale  Thompson  and  other  officials,  whose  official  acts 
and  policies  the  Tribune  had  dared  to  condemn.  The 
politicians'  claim  was  that  the  publicity  had  libeled  the 
city  government  and  injured  its  credit  or  borrowing 
power.  The  $10,000,000  demanded  as  damages  was 
about  the  total  value  of  the  paper's  property.  Had  the 
politicians  won  the  suit,  the  Tribune  would  have  been 
put  out  of  business  and  city  hall  politicians  everywhere 
would  have  been  free  to  go  as  far  as  they  liked  without 
fear  of  publicity. 

Fortunately,  the  judge  sustained  a  demurrer  entered 
by  the  newspaper,  threw  the  absurd  case  out  of  court 
and  notified  the  city  hall  crowd  that  they  had  no  cause 
of  action.  Said  Judge  Fisher:  "This  action  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our 
institutions." 

That  is  true,  of  course.  Yet  that  obvious  truth  did 
not  serve  to  prevent  the  bringing  of  the  anti-constitu- 
tional lawsuit.  It  did  not  spare  the  judge,  when  he 
wished  to  throw  the  unprecedented  case  out  of  court, 
from  entering  into  an  explanation  that  court  decisions 
in  foreign  countries  do  not  necessarily  apply  in  this 
country,  that  the  United  States  never  inherited  provi- 
sions of  the  English  common  law  restricting  the  liberty 
of  the  press,  that  the  laws  of  medieval  England  are  as 
much  to  be  avoided  as  followed,  and  so  on. 


[36] 


When  an  elemental  principle  of  American  freedom  is 
not  to  be  protected  from  initial  attack  without  that  sort 
of  argument,  American  freedom  is  not  so  secure  as  it 
might  be.  Though  we  may  be  thankful  for  Judge  Fisher, 
we  may  be  fearful  that  another  judge,  another  time,  may 
be  more  amenable  to  politicians  than  to  principles.  It 
is  still  as  true  as  ever  that  eternal  vigilance  is  the  price 
of  liberty. 

SPRINGFIELD  (Ohio)  Sun,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

The  decision  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher  that  the  City  of 
Chicago  had)  no  actionable  cause  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  and^News  in  the  $10,000,000  damage  suits  in- 
stituted by  the  Thompson  administration,  following 
newspaper  criticism  of  that  administration,  positively 
and  specifically  upholds  the  freedom  of  the  press  as  a 
constitutional  right. 

The  press  is  at  liberty,  the  court  held,  not  only  to 
exercise  the  equivalent  of  free  speech  in  printing  news 
and  expressing  opinion,  but  to  expose  wrongdoing  in 
public  office  and  even  to  attack  public  servants. 

Modern  society  could  not  exist  in  security,  nor  repre- 
sentative government  endure,  without  alert,  impartial, 
and  fearless  publicity.  And  the  untrammeled  press, 
sincere  in  motive  and  honest  in  purpose,  is  the  most  in- 
dispensable of  public  institutions. 

The  church,  the  schools,  commerce,  the  people  and  the 
government  itself  depend  on  the  daily  newspaper  as 
their  most  valuable  and  necessary  auxiliary,  using  it 
constantly  as  their  own  medium  to  advance  the  general 
welfare. 

The  press  sees  and  hears  about  everything  of  impor- 
tance in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Its  vigilance  and  pub- 
licity prevent  revolutionary  upheavals,  hold  standard 
political  entities  together,  locate  and  feed  the  starving 
and  persecuted,  and  advance  those  things  which  make 
for  progress.  The  press  states  or  molds  public  sentiment 
and  opinion  against  great  wrongs  and  for  great  principles. 

As  the  press  is  public,  it  must  be  free.  Because  it  is 
responsible  to  the  public,  its  abuse  of  power  need  not  be 
feared,  for  the  public  would  cease  to  support  a  newspaper 
that  violated  its  trust  or  failed  in  its  duty.  Putting  the 


[37] 


press  in  chains  would  be  the  same  as  shackling  the  people. 
In  the  finality,  it  is  by  its  fulfillment  of  public  obliga- 
tions that  a  newspaper  merits  respect  and  wields  influ- 
ence, and  by  disregard  of  public  interests  or  the  common 
weal  that  it  destroys  itself. 

SPRINGFIELD  (Ohio)  News,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press 

If  the  press  of  this  country  has  any  particular  right 
to  exist  that  right  is  centered  in  the  privilege  of  being 
plain  spoken.  And  so  the  action  of  Judge  Harry  M. 
Fisher  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Chicago  in  sustaining  a 
demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  to  Mayor  Thompson's 
$10,000,000  libel  suit  is  important.  Under  the  guise 
of  representing  the  City  of  Chicago,  Thompson  sought 
damages  for  an  imaginary  libel  which  the  Tribune  al- 
legedly had  been  guilty  of.  The  court  held  that 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power 
to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which 
unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public 
benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue 
undismayed  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the 
unscrupulous  demagogue." 

In  this  tribute  to  the  press  the  court  has  emphasized 
what  other  courts  in  other  days  have  held  as  the  just 
measure  of  expression  of  the  power  and  position  of  the 
press.  Every  honorably  conducted  newspaper  in  America 
is  upheld  in  the  court's  decision  and  warning  is  issued  to 
unscrupulous  political  bosses  and  enemies  of  well  or- 
dered society  that  they  have  no  recourse  at  law  when 
their  intrigue  against  civic  government  is  uncovered 
and  thrown  upon  the  screen  for  the  public  to  gaze  upon 
and  reflect  over.  The  press  is  a  bulwark  of  strength 
to  community  life  and  the  avenging  arrow  that  pierces 
the  heart  of  unlawful  enterprise. 


[38] 


AKRON  (Ohio)  Times,  Oct.  23,  1921. 

Municipalities  Cannot  be  Libeled 

Mayor  William  Hale  Thompson  of  ( Chicago  is  known  as 
a  politician  who  is  practical  to  the  Nth  degree.  On 
Chicago  he  has  a  hold  that  will  be  hard  to  break.  His 
machine  dominates  thru  force  and  fear.  But  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  a  newspaper  of  his  own  political  faith,  has 
arisen  above  partisan  considerations  and  is  telling  the 
facts  to  the  people  of  Chicago.  Failing  in  an  attempt 
to  throw  a  cloud  on  the  title  to  land  occupied  by  the  pa- 
per's building,  he  had  the  municipal  corporation  of  Chi- 
cago sue  The  Tribune  for  $10,000,000  libel.  This  was 
to  serve  notice  on  other  papers  that  they  should  say  noth- 
ing or  face  similar  suits.  When  suit  was  filed  the  Sun- 
day Times  commented  on  it  as  a  proposition  that  struck 
at  the  last  defense  of  the  citizen  against  entrenched  and 
predatory  politicians  and  is  glad  now  to  note  that  the 
case  has  been  thrown  out  of  court  by  Judge  Fisher,  who 
held  that  a  libel  suit  does  not  lie  against  a  municipal 
corporation,  being  an  infringement  of  the  constitutional 
guaranty  of  free  press. 

After  defining  the  fundamentals  of  libel,  Judge  Fisher 
held  that  "stripped  of  all  elaborate  argument,  in  the  con- 
fusion of  which  the  question  for  decision  might  look 
difficult,  the  fact  remains  that  if  this  action  is  maintain- 
able then  public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the 
most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the 
press  and  silence  their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be 
held  over  the  head  of  every  one  who  dares  print  or  speak 
unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power."  This  is  worth  every 
one's  attention.  If  public  officials  could  silence  news- 
papers they  could  also  take  away  the  right  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  express  an  unfavorable  opinion  concerning 
them.  Therefore,  said  Judge  Fisher,  "this  action  is  not 
in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  in- 
stitutions. It  does  not  belong  in  our  day.  It  fits  rather 
with  the  genius  of  the  rulers  who  conceived  law  not  in  the 
purity  of  love  for  justice  but  in  the  lustful  passion  for  un- 
disturbed power.9' 

There  is  a  local  application  that  should  not  be  over- 
looked. 


[39] 


ATHENS  (Ohio)  Messenger,  Oct.  24,  1921. 

Popular  rights  and  political  efficiency  are  both  up- 
held by  the  decision  of  a  Chicago  judge,  throwing  out  of 
court  the  $10,000,000  suit  brought  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  by  the  mayor  of  the  city.  The  action  was  in- 
spired by  criticism  of  the  mayor.  Though  drastic, 
the  court  held  that  such  criticism  was  a  legitimate  func- 
tion of  a  free  press — a  verdict  in  which  public  opinion 
will  probably  concur,  regardless  of  the  character  of  the 
litigants  themselves. 

The  need  of  freedom  in  printing  news  and  commenting 
on  it  becomes  greater  as  communities  grow  and  public 
business,  like  all  other  business,  becomes  more  complex. 
The  newspaper  is  a  sort  of  responsible  middleman  be- 
tween the  public  and  its  officials  representing  the  interest 
of  the  former  while  closely  observing  the  latter,  recording 
their  acts  and  holding  them  to  strict  account.  It  is  a 
great  power  which  the  newspaper  wields,  but  there  is 
little  danger  of  its  being  abused  more  than  momentarily. 
Its  work  is  all  public,  and  so  the  public  itself  is  in  position 
at  all  times  to  hold  it  to  its  duty,  prospering  it  by  sup- 
port or  destroying  it  by  disapproval. 

The  press  has  become,  therefore,  a  powerful  though 
unofficial  organ  of  government.  Intelligent  popular 
government  would  be  impossible  without  it.  Continu- 
ous progress  in  government  is  possible  mainly  because, 
while  public  servants  come  and  go,  the  press  is  per- 
manent, forever  on  the  job  of  public  service,  translating 
public  will  into  public  action. 

LIMA  (Ohio)  Gazette,  Oct.  26,  1921. 

Press  Freedom 

The  suit  for  $10,000,000  damages  brought  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  by  Mayor  Thompson,  of  Chicago,  has 
served  a  good  purpose  by  pointing  out  once  more,  in  an 
emphatic  manner,  the  function  and  merits  of  the  news- 
paper press  in  general. 

The  suit  was  dismissed  by  the  court  as  an  unwarranted 
attack  on  the  freedom  of  the  press.  Because  the  Tribune 
criticized  the  mayor's  conduct  of  the  city  affairs,  the 
mayor,  identifying  himself  with  the  "city"  in  a  way  not 


[40] 


uncommon  among  officeholders  of  long  tenure,  tried  to 
put  the  Tribune  out  of  business.  Judge  Fisher,  in  up- 
holding the  right  of  the  defendant  to  publish  its  criticism, 
declared : 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  the  ears  of  the 
world.  It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal 
of  the  suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our 
officials  and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in 
their  power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the 
force  which  unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the 
acts  of  public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors 
would  continue  undismayed  and  public  offices  would  be 
the  rich  reward  for  the  unscrupulous  demagogue." 

This  is  the  literal  truth,  as  every  thinking  citizen 
doubtless  agrees.  The  law  and  public  opinion  both 
recognize  that,  whatever  may  be  the  possibilities  of  the 
press  abusing  its  great  powers,  they  are  far  less  than  the 
dangers  that  would  spring  from  the  repression  of  honest 
comment. 


COSHOCTON  (Ohio)  Tribune,  Oct.  28,  1921. 

The  Press  Must  Be  Free 

Judge  Fisher's  decision  in  the  $10,000,000  libel  suit  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  is  a 
sweeping  assertion  of  the  right  and  duty  of  newspapers 
to  keep  the  public  fully  informed  of  the  conduct  of  the 
Government  and  of  public  officials  and  to  criticize 
official  and  governmental  acts  which  in  its  opinion  are 
detrimental  to  the  public  welfare. 

The  judicial  opinion  is  such  a  clear  and  comprehen- 
sive statement  of  the  functions  of  a  newspaper  as  the 
guardian  of  public  interests  and  the  instrument  by  which 
the  public  is  kept  informed  of  all  things  necessary  to 
enlightened  opinion  and  judgment  on  the  conditions  of 
society  and  governmental  acts,  that  it  ought  to  be  uni- 
versally read  by  the  people.  The  Judge  forcefully 
defines  the  right  of  the  newspapers  to  publish  all  facts 
bearing  upon  the  public  welfare  and  to  comment  upon 
them  for  the  purpose  of  informing  and  directing  public 
opinion  and  thus  unifying  and  crystallizing  it  for  action 
against  the  bad  and  for  the  good. 


[41] 


The  only  conditions  which  govern  the  liberty  of  the 
press  are  the  honesty  and  sincerity  of  its  purpose  and  the 
conscientious  and  reasonable  care  exercised  by  the  news- 
paper in  ascertaining  the  truth  and  expressing  its  own 
opinion.  The  object  must  be  the  public  welfare  and 
never  the  injury  of  the  public  official  whose  conduct  is 
subject  to  exposure  and  criticism  or  detraction  of  the 
administration  whose  acts  are  condemned.  While  the 
Judge's  comments  upon  the  functions  of  newspapers  are 
highly  interesting  and  instructive,  a  few  paragraphs  on 
the  main  point  at  issue  show  the  scope  of  the  decision: 

"  Stripped  of  all  the  elaborate  argument  in  the  confusion  of 
which  the  question  for  decision  might  look  difficult,  the 
fact  remains  that,  if  this  action  is  maintainable,  then 
public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective 
instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to  silence 
their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of 
everyone  who  dares  to  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the 
men  in  power. 

"The  freedom  of  speech  and  the  press  was,  at  the  very 
inception  of  our  Government,  regarded  as  indispensable  to 
a  free  state.  *  *  * 

"  While  good  reason  exists  for  denying  a  publisher  the  right 
to  print  that  which  he  cannot  prove  against  an  individual, 
and  recklessly  to  pry  into  his  personal  affairs,  defaming  his 
character  and  reputation,  no  reason  exists  for  restraining 
the  publication  against  a  municipality  or  other  governmental 
agency,  of  such  facts,  which,  as  Judge  Taft  puts  it,  it  is 
well  that  the  public  should  know,  even,  if  it  lies  hidden 
from  judicial  investigation." 

The  Chicago  suit  differs  from  previous  suits  of  this 
character  in  that  it  was  brought  in  behalf  of  a  municipality 
as  a  whole  as  representing  the  interest  of  citizens  and  not 
by  a  public  official.  The  courts  have  sustained  the 
rights  of  the  press  to  publish  facts  bearing  upon  official 
conduct  and  to  comment  thereon  with  reason  and  sin- 
cerity and  the  decision  establishes  its  right  to  criticise 
municipalities  and  all  other  governmental  agencies  when- 
ever in  its  opinion  the  public  welfare  requires  it. 

Judge  Fisher's  able  exposition  of  the  functions  of  the 
press  as  a  public  guardian  and  his  assertion  of  its  freedom 
to  publish  facts  and  express  opinions  concerning  govern- 
mental policies  and  conditions  and  official  acts  is  pecu- 
liarly timely  and  valuable  in  view  of  the  efforts  during 
and  since  the  war  to  muzzle  and  control  the  newspapers. 


[42] 


He  points  out  the  danger  attending  any  attempt  to  gag 
or  intimidate  the  press. 

SPRINGFIELD  (Ohio)  News,  Oct.  29,  1921. 

The  Right  to  Criticize 

Immunity  from  criticism  has  never  been  a  prerogative 
of  public  officials  in  this  country,  and  any  hope  they  may 
have  been  entertaining  that  the  mayor  of  Chicago  was 
going  to  secure  it  for  them  by  muzzling  Chicago  papers 
has  gone  glimmering.  Instead,  a  judicial  decision  has 
reaffirmed  the  principle  that  criticism  is  not  only  the 
privilege  but  the  duty  of  the  public  press,  and  editors 
are  accordingly  rejoicing  that  another  "Insolent  attack  on 
the  constitutional  freedom  of  the  press,"  to  quote  the 
Philadelphia  Bulletin  (Ind.  Rep.),  has  only  succeeded, 
as  the  Kansas  City  Star  (Ind.)  observes,  "in  making 
that  principle  more  secure." 

"The  first  attempt  on  record  of  city  governament  to 
avenge  itself  upon  a  newspaper  critic  by  a  libel  suit  has 
failed  completely,"  the  Boston  Herald  (Ind.  Rep.)  re- 
ports, and  the  principles  involved  in  the  decision  "are 
nation  wide."  The  suit  brought  by  Mayor  Thompson 
in  the  name  of  the  city,  asking  for  ten  million  dollars 
damages  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  the  Chicago 
News  for  "injury  to  the  credit  of  the  municipal  corpora- 
tion," was  evidently  intended,  the  Herald  believes,  "to 
silence  criticism  in  the  press  and  on  the  platform."  A 
successful  outcome  of  such  an  issue,  involving  a  penalty 
"large  enough  to  wreck  any  newspaper  property,"  would 
make  "anything  like  fair  and  frank  criticism  of  a  munic- 
ipal administration  impossible."  But,  as  the  Seattle 
Times  (Ind.)  notes  the  court  "properly"  held  that  such 
criticism  "is  within  the  rightful  purview  of  the  press" 
and  that  newspaper  comment  dealing  with  governmental 
conditions  "could  not  be  curtailed  without  abridging  the 
freedom  of  speech  of  these  publications." 

The  action  which  the  Thompson  administration, 
"enraged  by  the  publication  of  too  much  truth,"  as  the 
Duluth  Herald  (Ind.)  puts  it,  brought  against  its  critics 
was,  indeed,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Columbia  (S.  C.) 
Record  (Dem.)  "one  of  the  most  vicious  assaults  upon 


[43] 


the  freedom  of  the  press  ever  launched  in  the  United 
States,"  and  in  "hitting  straight  from  the  shoulder" 
in  an  unequivocal  defense  of  that  traditional  American 
right,  the  Great  Falls  (Mont.)  Leader  (Rep.)  thinks 
Judge  Fisher,  who  wrote  the  decision,  has  earned  the 
thanks  of  "every  honest  citizen  and  every  honest  news- 
paper of  the  United  States."  The  principal  defendant 
in  the  case  also  believes  that  "citizens  throughout  the 
country.  .  .  .  will  realize  that  the  decision  is  a  note- 
worthy assertion  of  American  constitutional  right,"  even 
though  "any  comment  by  the  Tribune  may  be  dis- 
counted because  of  our  selfish  interest." 

While  "the  effort  to  impair  the  right  of  the  press  to 
criticize  public  officials  was  a  bold  stroke,"  the  Nashville 
Tennessean  (Ind.  Dem.)  thinks  /'it  is  just  as  well  that  it 
was  taken  and  made  the  subject  of  judicial  determina- 
tion." In  every  city,  the  Roanoke  World  News  (Dem.) 
says,  "the  autocratic  politicians  in  power  would  prefer 
to  have  the  press  muzzled,"  and  they  are  "always  ready 
and  anxious  to  spring  upon  the  press  which  dares  to 
criticize."  But,  warns  the  Grand  Rapids  Press  (Ind.) 
"if  the  Hylans  and  the  Thompsons  of  the  land  ever 
succeed  in  such  attempts  against  the  newspapers  of  their 
cities  we  may  as  well  hand  over  our  political  freedom  to 
the  dictator  along  with  our  principles  of  free-speech  and 
free  press."  If  men  holding  office  could  "make  it  possible 
for  the  press  to  criticize  their  official  acts,"  the  result, 
as  the  Hartford  Times  (Dem.)  sees  it,  would  be  that 
"this  country  would  not  long  remain  free,"  for,  as  the 
Philadelphia  Public  Ledger  (Ind.)  says,  "no  matter  how 
corrupt,  how  dangerous  or  sinister  any  official  might 
be,  he  would  be  able  to  use  the  power  of  the  municipality 
in  hiding  his  crookedness  and  infirmities.  With  the  tax- 
payers' money  he  could  prosecute  any  taxpayer  who 
publicly  questioned  his  crookedness." 


[44] 


NEW  YORK  Evening  World,  Sept.  23,  l!h>l. 

Chicago  Has  One,  Too 

Newpapcrs  ami  (lie  public  will  watch  with  interest 
the  libel  action  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  brought  in 
the  name  of  the  City  of  Chicago  by  the  Thompson  ele- 
ment in  the  City  Hall. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  any  court  or  jury  would  care 
to  set  the  precedent  for  such  a  muzzling  of  the  press,  so 
great  a  restriction  on  the  right  of  criticism  of  public 
affairs  by  alert  newspapers. 

Still,  Mayor  Hylan  ought  to  watch  this  trial  with 
interest.  If  it  should  happen  that  the  courts  punished 
the  Tribune,  the  Mayor  of  New  York  would  not  need  to 
make  himself  ridiculous  by  public  proclamations  against 
"hate-crazed"  and  "disloyal"  newspaper  publishers. 

He  could  instruct  his  Corporation  Counsel  to  sue  and 
make  them  pay  for  their  "mad  fury." 

NEW  YORK  Editor  and  Publisher,  Sept.  24, 
1921. 

Newspapers  Cannot  Be  Silenced 

The  newspapers  of  two  cities,  New  York  and  Chicago, 
are  far  from  being  popular  with  their  respective  mayors. 
Mayor  Hylan  says  the  New  York  newspapers  are 
"knockers"  instead  of  "boosters,"  because  they  have  been 
engaged  in  showing  up  the  shortcomings  of  his  admin- 
istration. Mayor  Thompson,  of  Chicago,  is  so  worked 
up  over  the  things  that  the  Tribune  and  the  Daily  News 
of  that  city  have  been  printing  about  its  government 
and  its  officials  that  he  has  brought  suit  on  behalf  of  the 
municipality  against  each  of  them,  asking  damages  of 
$10,000,000  for  the  injury  they  have  done  to  Chicago's 
credit  and  its  officials. 

Both  of  these  mayors  have  reason  to  be  upset  over  the 
revelations  these  newspapers  have  made  public  concern- 
ing the  mismanagement,  incompetency  and  wasteful- 
ness of  their  respective  administrations.  How  much 
more  comfortable  they  would  feel  if  the  newspapers  kept 
silent  about  such  matters,  and  confined  their  attention 
to  pink  teas,  tiddle-de-wink  matches  and  donkey  parties ! 


[45] 


Fortunately,  the  newspapers  are  not  afraid  to  expose 
graft,  crookedness  and  chicanery  wherever  they  find  it. 
All  a  public  official  need  do  to  prevent  them  from  pub- 
lishing annoying  charges  against  him  is  to  discharge  his 
duties  as  an  honest  and  faithful  servant  of  the  munici- 
pality to  the  best  of  his  ability.  If  he  errs  in  judgment 
he  may  be  criticised  but  his  integrity  will  remain  unim- 
peached. 

Freedom  of  the  press  is  one  of  the  greatest  safeguards 
of  a  republic.  Men  who  hold  public  office  know  that 
their  acts  will  be  subjected  to  the  scrutiny  of  the  Argus- 
eyed  newspapers.  They  may  try  to  put  something  over 
on  the  public,  thinking  they  won't  be  found  out,  but  later 
they  usually  discover  they  are  mistaken. 

Libel  suits,  the  withdrawal  of  advertising,  and  even 
threats  of  personal  violence  will  not  stop  the  newspapers 
from  the  performance  of  their  duty  to  the  public  to  which 
they  owe  allegiance  and  whose  interests  they  are  bound 
to  protect  if  they  are  to  maintain  their  position  in  the 
community. 

NEW  YORK  World,  Sept.  25,  1921. 

Lese  Majesty  in  Chicago 

When  President  Roosevelt  discovered  in  1908  that  The 
World  had  told  more  truth  about  the  acquisition  of  the 
Panama  Canal  than  was  good  for  his  reputation  he  or- 
dered Attorney  General  Bonaparte  to  bring  suit  against 
The  World  for  "a  libel  upon  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment." In  very  similar  fashion  Mayor  Thompson  of 
Chicago  has  brought  a  $10,000,000  libel  suit  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  in  the  name  of  the  city — not  for  criti- 
cising Chicago  but  for  criticising  the  Thompson  Admin- 
istration. 

Lese  majesty,  which  has  disappeared  from  every 
monarchy  of  Europe,  still  survives  in  this  proudest  of 
democracies,  at  least  in  the  imaginations  of  politicians 
elected  to  high  office.  Mayor  Thompson  appears  to 
believe,  as  Theodore  Roosevelt  believed  before  him,  that 
when  information  concerning  an  important  official  act 
is  likely  to  injure  the  prestige  of  an  office-holder  it  is  a 
libel  against  the  Government  to  print  it.  If  incompetents 


[46] 


in  office  cannot  be  criticized  because  of  the  shaky  dig- 
nity of  the  offices  they  hold,  democracy  is  already  a  fail- 
ure and  may  as  well  be  given  up  at  once. 

The  Tribune,  it  is  said,  embarrassed  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago financially  by  revealing  certain  conditions  at  an 
inopportune  juncture.  It  is  the  business  of  democratic 
government  so  to  conduct  itself  that  it  can  stand  the 
truth  at  any  time.  Evidently  Mayor  Thompson  is 
convinced  that  he  is  Chicago  and  that  Chicago  is  a 
municipal  Kaiser. 

NEW  YORK  Fourth  Estate,  Oct,  1,  1921. 

Press  Should  Unite  in  Its  Own  Defense 

Are  newspapers  to  be  penalized  for  printing  the  news? 
Is  it  a  crime  against  the  common  weal  to  condemn 
practices  in  high  places  that  are  detrimental  to  the 
public? 

The  city  of  Chicago  has  sued  The  Chicago  Tribune  for 
confi scatory  damages ;  the  mayor  of  New  York  has  issued 
a  proclamation  against  New  York  papers  generally, 
which,  in  spite  of  its  ridiculous  aspect,  is  serious  because 
it  is  under  his  official  seal;  the  Ku  Klux  threatens  to  sue 
the  New  York  World  and  makes  more  dire  threats  against 
it  and  other  papers  of  the  country;  an  official  of  the  Anti- 
saloon  League  accuses  the  newspapers  in  the  larger  cities 
of  being  parties  to  a  conspiracy  to  discredit  prohibition. 
These  are  of  the  number  of  similar  attacks  of  recent 
history. 

These  constitute  an  attack  on  the  freedom  of  the  press 
that  is  as  potential  as  vindictive. 

If  the  newspapers  of  the  country  must  refrain  from 
publishing  items  of  news  because  they  affect  the  standing, 
political  or  otherwise,  of  certain  individuals  or  organiza- 
lions  through  fear  of  retaliatory  measures,  or  if  they  must 
quietly  pass  by  public  acts  that  are  inimical  to  public 
good,  then  there  is  no  such  thing  as  freedom  of  the  press, 
and  the  principal  province  of  newspapers  of  publishing 
all  the  news  and  defending  communities  or  the  country 
from  apparent  malfeasance  in  office  is  of  the  past. 

Since  the  inception  of  this  republic  there  has  been  a 
constant  and  victorious  fight  against  constitutional  or 


[47] 


legislative  infringement  upon  the  rights  of  the  press. 
If  this  new  sort  of  attack  achieves  momentum,  energized 
by  even  partial  success,  the  always  present  charge  that 
newspapers  are  controlled  will  be  true — destructively 
true. 

If  a  person  or  an  organization,  from  intrenchments  of 
power,  can  with  impunity  call  publishers  to  account  for 
publishing  the  news  about  them,  or  establishing  a  just 
censorship  of  their  acts,  it  will  mark  the  beginning  of  the 
end  of  freedom. 

Each  individual  publisher  justly  fights  his  own  indi- 
vidual battle,  but  abstractly  the  concern  of  one  is  the 
concern  of  all.  Newspapers  should  unite  in  the  use  of 
their  most  effective  weapon  against  this  iniquitous  tend- 
ency— publicity,  pitiless  and  complete. 

NEW  YORK  Newsdom,  Oct.  5,  1921. 

The  High  Cost  of  Free  Speech 

The  Libel  Action  by  the  City  of  Chicago  Against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  Raises  This  Important  Issue. 

The  $10,000,000  libel  suit  of  the  City  of  Chicago  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune  has  begun  and  its  progress  will  un- 
undoubtedly  be  watched  with  keen  interest  by  at  least 
every  publisher  and  politician  in  the  country.  On  the 
opening  day  of  the  trial  the  attorneys  for  the  newspaper 
moved  to  have  the  case  dismissed,  basing  their  arguments 
on  the  constitutional  right  of  the  freedom  of  the  press, 
and  pointing  out  that  the  suit  vitally  involves  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  a  publication  may  be  sued  for  libel  to  the 
extent  of  its  total  valuation,  and  hence  virtually  be  put 
out  of  business  if  the  suit  is  won. 

It  is  a  rare  thing  indeed  for  a  newspaper  so  large  as  the 
Tribune  to  be  sued  for  its  total  value.  But  small  and 
struggling  publications  have  often  been  thus  annihilated 
by  powerful  persons  or  interests  whom  they  had  attacked. 
We  recall  an  editor  of  a  little  paper  in  Pennsylvania  who 
was  ruined  and  sent  to  jail  (since  he  could  not  pay  the 
fines  and  damages  imposed)  after  resolutely  attacking 
the  all-powerful  Boies  Penrose,  U.  S.  Senator.  The 
Chicago  Tribune,  a  rich  paper,  feels  for  the  first  time  the 


[48] 


doom  that  constantly  threatens  every  outspoken  small 
publisher,  and  at  once  raises  the  issue  of  free  speech, 
freedom  of  the  press  and  constitutional  privilege. 

The  right  to  criticize  any  public  official  or  act  of  gov- 
ernment is  surely  a  principal  heritage  of  all  citizens  in  a 
republic.  It  is  a  right  fought  for  through  many  cen- 
turies and  dearly  won  at  the  expense  of  entrenched  au- 
thority, which  has  ever  sought  to  spare  itself  the  pains 
of  public  inquiry  and  the  warm  rays  of  the  spotlight. 
But  in  these  columns  we  have  often  pointed  out  that  this 
very  valuable  commodity,  freedom  of  the  press,  is  today 
controlled  by  altogether  too  small  a  minority  of  the 
American  public.  The  newspapers  are  incorporated 
stock  companies,  but  almost  invariably  controlled  by  an 
individual,  either  owner  or  the  representative  of  some 
group  or  family  owning  control  of  the  publishing  prop- 
erty. In  short,  in  a  nation  of  one  hundred  and  ten  mil- 
lions this  vital  freedom  of  the  press  is  vested  in  probably 
not  more  than  two  thousand  principal  publishers  of  the 
press,  or  approximately  two-thousandths  of  one  per 
cent,  of  the  citizens  of  the  republic  bestowing  their 
editorial  freedom. 

Now  we  have  made  a  close  study  of  the  kinds  and  char- 
acters of  American  publishers  today,  and  must  regret- 
fully report  that  few  of  this  rare  minority  measures  up 
to  the  highly  specialized  freedom  and  privilege  they 
constitutionally  enjoy.  All  citizens,  of  course,  enjoy 
free  speech,  but  free  speech  is  a  dwarf  compared  to  free- 
dom of  the  press.  The  average  newspaper  reader  has 
no  more  chance  of  outtalking  or  influencing  the  press 
in  its  use  or  abuse  of  its  freedom  than  he  has  power  to 
employ  his  constitutional  free  speech  in  persuading 
Grant's  Tomb  to  become  a  useful  suspension  bridge 
across  the  Hudson.  The  average  newspaper  publisher, 
like  the  reader,  is  just  an  individual,  with  private  no- 
tions and  plans  and  ambitions  and  greeds.  He  is  one  of 
a  fortunate  few  who  control  great  sources  of  public  opinion. 
And  as  an  individual  he  helps  himself  with  such  means  as 
he  has  at  hand,  in  this  case  powerful  and  extensive  and 
safeguarded  for  him  by  the  constitution  of  the  republic 
where  he  fortunately  thrives. 

As  we  had  occasion  to  set  forth  in  a  recent  leading 
article,  the  press  has  overworked  its  particular  kind  of 


[49] 


political  free  speech  until  the  time  has  come  when  news- 
paper opinion,  for  or  against,  is  likely  to  result  in  a  con- 
trary verdict  from  the  voters  at  the  polls.  But  apart 
from  the  domain  of  politics,  the  newspapers  of  this 
country  still  possess  enormous  influence,  great  power  for 
good  which  they  too  often  neglect,  and  greater  power  for 
harm  and  evil — which  some  of  them  abuse  with  serious 
result  to  all  concerned. 

Returning  to  the  case  of  The  Chicago  Tribune,  it 
seems  that  city  officials  base  their  libel  action  on  certain 
articles  published  which,  they  maintain,  hurt  the  city's 
credit  and  impaired  the  market  for  municipal  securities. 
V\l  This  is  a  novel  claim,  and  one  which  would  certainly 
have  appealed  to  Louis  XIV.  or  George  III.  In  short, 
the  civic  bosses  of  Chicago  (who  long  ago  earned  the 
profound  contempt  of  the  American  public  everywhere) 
hit  upon  a  new  manner  of  defense  by  attack,  and  of  pro- 
tecting entrenched  authority  (monarchy,  if  you  wish!) 
from  the  burning  spotlight  of  public  inquiry  and  criti- 
cism. 

The  law  of  libel  is  a  strange  and  peculiar  specimen  of 
the  lawmaker's  expert  blend  of  loopholes  and  fine  or 
imprisonment.  A  really  gifted  mudslinger  can  damage 
the  character  or  achievement  of  anyone  with  ease,  and 
be  immune  to  legal  action.  Whereas  a  straightforward 
and  earnest  exponent  of  truth  and  fact  is  liable  to  find 
that  the  cost  of  free  speech  can  make  the  high  cost  of 
living  seem  like  a  bargain.  For  example,  it  is  possible 
and  convenient  to  declare  in  print  that  "we  can  not  be- 
lieve that  Senator  X.  would  lend  himself  to  such  a  scan- 
dalous and  criminal  scheme."  This  ostensibly  praises 
Senator  X.,  but  it  firmly  embeds  in  the  dullest  wits  a 
conviction  that  everyone  but  the  writer  can  and  does  be- 
lieve Senator  X.  involved  in  a  scandalous  and  criminal 
scheme.  Senator  X.  takes  a  back-hand  wallop  from 
which  no  amount  of  acquittal  can  ever  wholly  revive 
him.  But  had  the  writer  stated  plainly  that  he  thought 
Senator  X.  scandalous  and  criminal,  even  though  citing 
a  specific  instance  of  the  Senator's  defective  character, 
he  would  be  inviting  the  Senator  to  go  to  law  in  the  mnl- 
ter,  and  probably  presenting  the  politician  with  a  wealth 
of  cleansing  publicity,  not  to  speak  of  possible  damages. 

In  this  way  it  is  shown  that  the  law  of  libel  practically 


[50] 


defeats  itself.  Anyone  deliberately  setting  out  to  in- 
jure another  can  do  so  in  print  with  great  subtlety  and 
lasting  effect.  But  an  independent  editor  or  publisher 
who  is  straightforward  in  thought,  method  and  intention 
may  render  himself  liable,  be  ruined  by  costly  trials  or 
excessive  damages,  be  put  in  jail,  be  silenced  by  the  very 
persons  or  interests  he  bravely  endeavored  to  expose. 

Henry  Ford  went  into  court  with  The  Chicago  Tribune, 
with  a  result  on  which  many  still  reflect  with  glee.  The 
Tribune  does  not  appear  to  be  a  particularly  libelous 
sheet,  yet  it  seems  to  get  on  the  nerves  of  those  whose 
damage-dreams  run  into  millions.  We  hardly  expect  to 
see  the  powerful  Tribune  put  out  of  business  by  the  dam- 
ages it  will  have  to  pay  in  this  case,  or  any  other  case 
involving  Boss  Thompson  and  his  gang.  The  American 
people  fought  for  freedom  of  speech,  won  it  by  sacrifice 
and  retain  it  by  vigilance.  The  newspapers,  great  or 
small,  must  bear  this  in  mind,  and  serve  loyally  those 
who  bestow  this  great  privilege  upon  them,  bestow  it 
simply  because  newspapers  are  supposed  to  be  the  voice 
of  the  people — and  that  voice  and  that  only  by  demo- 
cratic right  must  be  free. 


NEW  YORK  Evening  Post,  Oct.  17, 

No  Crime  to  Criticize  Officials 

Dismissal  of  the  libel  suit  for  $10,000,000  brought  by 
Mayor  Thompson  and  other  officials  in  the  name  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  rebukes 
as  impudent  an  attempt  as  has  ever  been  made  to  silence 
criticism  of  public  officials  in  this  country.  If  Mayor 
Thompson  felt  himself  wronged  by  the  comment  of  Chi- 
cago newspapers  upon  his  administration  of  affairs,  why 
did  he  not  bring  suit  in  his  own  name?  Judge  Fisher 
was  severe  upon  the  point.  "The  honest  official,"  he 
said,  "seldom  fears  criticism.  He  answers  argument  byj 
argument  and  only  in  extreme  cases  resorts  to  law.  The 
dishonest  official  is  often  restrained  by  the  fear  of  laying 
his  character  open  to  a  searching  judicial  inquiry.  But 
if  he  can  hide  his  own  infirmities  by  labelling  his  action 
in  the  name  of  a  municipality,  the  number  of  suits  would 
be  governed  only  by  political  expediency." 


[51] 


It  is  not  always  easy  for  public  officials  even  outside 
of  Chicago  to  realize  that  the  remedy  for  newspaper 
criticism  of  their  actions  is  not  suppression  of  the  offend- 
ing newspapers  but  suppression  of  their  own  ill-judged 
policies. 

NEW  YORK  World,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  Free  Press  Again  Upheld 

With  a  seemly  promptitude,  Judge  Harry  M.  Fisher  of 
the  Circuit  Court  has  sustained  The  Chicago  Tribune's 
demurrer  to  Mayor  Thompson's  $10,000,000  libel  suit, 
brought  ostensibly  on  behalf  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

In  rendering  his  decision  and  in  giving  notice  that  an 
amended  declaration  will  be  of  no  avail,  Judge  Fisher 
makes  it  properly  plain  that  what  he  upholds  is  not  the 
case  of  the  single  newspaper  involved  but  the  constitu- 
tional freedom  of  the  press  and  the  right  of  the  people 
to  be  keenly  and  broadly  informed  concerning  their  own 
affairs  and  interests.  "The  press,"  says  the  bench,  "has 
become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world."  Further— 

"It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power 
to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  uni- 
fies public  sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  bene- 
factors would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  un- 
dismayed and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the 
unscrupulous  demagogue." 

This  is  a  just  tribute  to  the  responsible  newspaper 
press.  It  is  a  judicial  .recognition  of  the  need,  voiced 
by  indirection  in  the  basic  law  of  the  state,  of  serious, 
intelligent  criticism  of  the  system,  purposes,  instruments 
and  faults  of  government. 

Commenting  in  a  previous  editorial  upon  Mayor 
Thompson's  suit,  The  World  referred  to  the  action  for 
libel  brought  against  itself  in  1908  over  the  Panama  Canal 
Zone  seizure  by  President  Roosevelt  for  the  United  States 
Government.  The  principles  of  law  as  a  bulwark  of  free 
discussion  which  prevailed  in  the  greater  case  are  satis- 
factorily upheld  in  the  lesser.  We  should  fancy  that 
there  might  now  be  recorded  a  definite,  permanent  check 
upon  the  attempted  industry  of  establishing  a  doctrine 


[52] 


of  "lese  majesty"  under  the  standard  of  American  democ- 
racy. 

NEW  YORK  Evening  World,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

To  the  Higher  Court 

Virtually  dismissing  a  politically  inspired  libel  suit 
brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  by  Mayor  Thomp- 
son and  his  political  associates  acting  in  the  name  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  Judge  Fisher  has  reaffirmed  and  given 
new  standing  to  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  modern 
democracy,  the  right  and  privilege  of  free  criticism  of 
public  policy  in  the  public  press. 

It  is  true  this  right  and  privilege  may  be  abused  at 
times,  but  the  penalty  for  such  abuse  ought  not  to  be 
administered  through  the  legalistic  mazes  of  court  pro- 
cedure. If  democracy  is  to  endure,  the  penalty  must  be 
inflicted  by  public  opinion. 

If  a  newspaper  is  unfair  in  its  criticisms  of  public 
policy,  time  will  reveal  the  errors.  The  public  must 
train  itself  to  remember  and  balance  the  accounts  for 
or  against  the  newspaper. 

If  a  newspaper  is  generally  right,  it  deserves  public 
confidence.  If  it  is  usually  wrong  and  misleads  the 
public,  then  it  will  lose  the  confidence  and  support  of  its 
readers.  That  is  the  supreme  penalty  which  may  be 
inflicted  on  a  newspaper. 

Courts  cannot  settle  such  questions.  The  final  ver- 
dict may  not  rest  on  any  single  issue,  true  or  false. 
Not  twelve  men  but  all  the  readers  of  a  newspaper  must 
bring  in  the  verdict.  The  jury  is  always  "out." 

While  the  issue  is  being  decided  the  newspaper  must 
be  free  to  devote  its  energies  to  newspaper  making,  not 
to  defending  itself  against  the  politically  inspired  legal- 
ism  of  politicians  who  happen  to  control  in  City,  State 
or  Nation. 

Between  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  Mayor  Thompson 
time  and  the  citizens  of  Chicago  must  judge.  This  may 
be  hard  for  Mayor  Thompson,  but  it  is  a  price  he  must 
pay  for  living  in  a  Nation  which  aspires  to  democratic 
government. 


[53] 


NEW  YORK  Times,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Proper  Newspaper  Criticism 

In  throwing  out  of  court  the  ridiculous  suit  for  $10,- 
000,000  damages  brought  by  the  City  of  Chicago  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune,  Judge  Fisher  reaffirmed  some 
fundamental  and  wholesome  principles.  The  press  is 
far  from  being  unbridled.  Laws  exist  to  punish  it  for 
sedition,  indecency,  or  personal  defamation.  But  public 
policy  and  judicial  decisions  have  long  permitted  and 
even  encouraged  the  freest  criticism  of  men  in  office. 
Judge  Fisher  well  said  that,  if  newspapers  were  to  be 
deprived  of  that  liberty,  a  new  weapon  would  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  unscrupulous  officials. 

Every  one  understands  that  it  was  not  really  the  "City" 
of  Chicago  that  sought  to  mulct  or  silence  the  Tribune, 
but  Mayor  Thompson.  He  but  makes  a  new  use  of  the 
phrase,  "1'etat,  c'est  moi."  It  was  the  Mayor  that  the 
Chicago  newspapers  attacked,  and  the  Mayor  purely 
in  his  public  capacity ;  the  man  at  the  head  of  a  municipal 
administration  which  was  bringing  disrepute  and  peril 
upon  Chicago.  Possibly  the  Tribune  went  too  far  in 
asserting  that  Chicago  had  been  made  "bankrupt"  by 
the  Thompson  regime,  but  that  was  only  a  rhetorical 
exaggeration  of  the  admitted  truth.  And  on  the  main 
allegations  made  in  the  suit  the  Court  emphatically, 
and  in  line  with  many  precedents,  held  that  there  was 
"no  cause  of  action."  Thus  a  peculiarly  impudent 
attempt  to  limit  the  freedom  and  usefulness  of  the  press 
has  had  the  stamp  of  deserved  judicial  disapproval 
placed  upon  it. 

NEW  YORK  Sun,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Lese  Chicago 

A  wide  interest  attaches  to  the  ruling  of  a  Chicago 
judge  that  officials  of  that  city  have  no  cause  for  a  libel 
suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  based  on  the  assertion 
that  the  defendant  had  uttered  hurtful  things  about  the 
city's  financial  condition.  New  York,  since  the  question 
of  the  city's  pocketbook  is  particularly  prominent  here 
too  at  this  moment,  looks  on  the  Chicago  suit  and  its  out- 

[54] 


come  with  especial  interest.  It  welcomes  a  judicial 
ruling  that  should  protect  the  public  right  to  discuss 
public  a  Hairs. 

Often  have  officeholders  objected  to  press  criticism, 
as  did  the  Mayor  of  Chicago.  The  Non-partisan  League 
administration  in  North  Dakota  has  complained  that  the 
newspapers  misrepresented  the  State's  finances  and  so 
injured  its  credit,  a  charge  identical  with  the  one  that 
Mayor  Thompson  made  in  Chicago. 

The  public  must  have  accurate  information  about  its 
affairs  and  must  guard  against  misrepresentation.  The 
best  guaranty  for  this  we  have  been  able  to  develop  is 
free  criticism  of  government.  If  criticism  were  restricted 
we  should  find  it  much  more  difficult  to  arrive  at  the  truth. 
As  the  Court  pointed  out,  to  allow  officials  to  sue  upon 
spoken  or  printed  assertions  would  be  to  give  them  a 
weapon  that  could  be  used  against  any  opponent  or 
critic  of  those  in  power. 

The  dangers  in  freedom  of  discussion  of  public  ques- 
tions, the  opportunities  for  misrepresentation,  have  not 
been  considered  by  democratic  communities  as  com- 
parable to  the  dangers  involved  in  any  official  or  judicial 
restriction  of  this  right. 

NEW  YORK  World,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

In  rendering  his  decision  and  in  giving  notice  that  an 
amended  declaration  will  be  of  no  avail,  Judge  Fisher 
makes  it  properly  plain  that  what  he  upholds  is  not  the 
case  of  the  single  newspaper  involved  but  the  constitu- 
tional freedom  of  the  press  and  the  right  of  the  people 
to  be  keenly  and  broadly  informed  concerning  their 
own  affairs  and  interests.  "The  press,"  says  the  bench, 
"has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world." 

NEW  YORK  Editor  and  Publisher,  Oct.  22, 
1921. 

Free  Press  and  the  Law 

Freedom  of  the  press  has  been  an  important  factor 
in  the  activities  of  two  departments  of  government  dur- 
ing the  past  few  days.  The  Chicago  Tribune  success- 
fully defended  the  principle,  as  well  as  its  own  existence, 
in  the  Circuit  Court  of  Illinois,  in  the  suit  filed  by  the 


[55] 


City  of  Chicago  to  collect  $10,000,000  damages  based  on 
the  Tribune's  criticism  of  the  city  administration's 
methods  of  government  and  finance.  So  much  for  the 
judiciary. 

In  the  U.  S.  Senate,  however,  there  now  reposes  a  bill, 
railroaded  through  the  House,  which  would  punish  by 
fine  and  exclusion  from  the  mails  any  newspaper  which 
published  the  news  of  any  event  on  which  the  public 
had  placed  wagers,  or  quoted  the  odds  at  which  such 
wagers  were  made.  The  latter  bill  and  the  action  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  had  the  same  fundamental  intent— 
the  placing  of  statutory  limitation  on  what  may  be  printed 
in  the  public  press. 

Judge  Fisher  in  dismissing  the  suit  against  the  Tribune, 
said:  "The  action  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius, 
spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions.  The  freedom  of 
speech  and  of  the  press  was  at  the  very  inception  of  our 
government  regarded  as  indispensable  to  a  free  state. 
There  is  need  of  so  much  knowledge  in  our  complicated 
social  order  that  unless  we  were  advised  by  those  who 
are  expert  in  collecting  information  and  disseminating 
it,  we  would  be  helpless. 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  the  ears  of  the 
world,  and,  to  a  great  extent,  humanity  in  all  its  parts. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  in  their  power 
to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which 
unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts  of  public 
benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  con- 
tinue undismayed  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich 
reward  of  unscrupulous  demagogues. 

"The  Court  has  no  more  sympathy  with  newspapers 
indulging  in  scandal  and  defamation  than  have  the  most 
bitter  assailants  of  the  press.  But  the  remedy  is  not  to 
be  found  in  new  law  suppressing  publication." 

The  court  said  that  if  the  present  suit  could  be  main- 
tained "then  public  officials  would  have  in  their  power  one 
of  the  most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate 
the  press  and  silence  their  enemies.  It  would  be  a  wea- 
pon to  be  used  over  the  head  of  every  one  who  dared 
print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 

No  comment  is  necessary  on  this  clear  statement  of 


[56] 


the  rights  of  the  press  as  they  were  affected  in  the  Chi- 
cago case,  but  it  can  well  be  studied  by  those  who  seek 
to  insure  by  statute  the  moral  integrity  of  the  nation. 

NEW  YORK  Fourth  Estate,  Oct.  22,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press  Still  Lives 

Among  many  recent  cases  of  individuals  or  corpora- 
tions trying  ineffectually  to  recover  from  newspapers 
for  alleged  damage  caused  by  an  endeavor  to  protect 
the  common  good,  or  for  publication  of  news  items 
affecting  them,  that  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  is  pre-emi- 
nent because  of  the  peculiar  features  of  the  case. 

Here  was  a  strongly  intrenched  political  machine 
charged  with  dissipating  the  public  funds  by  a  newspaper, 
in  its  undoubted  province  of  watching  and  conserving 
the  rights  of  the  public,  in  an  attitude  that  had  many 
indications  of  revengeful  spite. 

In  sustaining  the  demurrer  and  dismissing  the  suit  the 
judge  gave  utterance  to  an  axiomatic  truth  when  he 
said  that  harm  would  certainly  result  to  a  community 
from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity. 

During  the  war  the  newspapers  of  the  country  were  a 
unit  in  supporting  the  propaganda  of  Americanism. 
Propaganda  may  have  become  a  habit  with  some  of  them 
and  reached  into  other  fields  without  warrant.  For 
such  cases  there  is  a  remedy,  but  that  is  entirely  a  dif- 
ferent matter  from  restraining  rightful  expression  of 
opinion. 

The  freedom  of  the  press  is  so  important  a  funda- 
mental of  democracy  that  it  was  written  in  one  of  the 
greatest  safeguards  of  liberty — the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

It  is  a  matter  of  felicitation,  not  only  among  news- 
papers but  among  all  citizens  of  the  country,  that  efforts 
so  far  to  undermine  the  right  of  free  speech  have  been 
fruitless. 

Without  an  absolutely  free  press,  free  to  record  news 
in  an  impartial  manner,  and  free  to  safeguard  every 
interest  of  community  and  country,  to  fearlessly  uphold 
the  powerless  against  the  powerful,  with  the  power  to 
collate  and  give  united  force  to  public  opinion,  all  the 


[57] 


works    of    the    founders   and  preservers  of  the  Nation 
would  go  for  naught. 

Especially  must  the  press  be  safeguarded  against  the 
encroachment  of  political  organizations,  which,  primarily, 
are  promoted  by  selfish  interests. 

Both  the  press  and  those  who  would  restrict  its  prov- 
ince must  finally  stand  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion— 
the  supreme  court  of  their  actions. 

The  press  is  unafraid ! 

NEW  YORK  Literary  Digest,  Oct.  29,  1921. 

The  Right  to  Critizise  Chicago 

Back  in  1735  an  old  printer  named  John  Peter  Zenger 
so  irritated  the  Colonial  rulers  of  New  York  by  attacks  in 
his  Weekly  Journal  that  it  was  solemnly  resolved  in 
Council  that  certain  of  the  Zenger  writings  should  be 
publicly  burnt  by  the  common  hangman  and  that  the 
publisher  himself  should  be  charged  with  libel.  The 
subsequent  jury  verdict  of  "not  guilty"  has  been"  called 
"the  morning  star  of  that  liberty  which  subsequently 
revolutionized  America."  No  copies  of  the  Chicago 
Tribune  have  been  burnt  in  Grant  Park,  but  the  Trib- 
une and  The  Daily  News  have  been  sued  for  libel  by  the 
city  government  on  the  ground  that  their  criticisms  of 
the  municipal  administration  and  their  charges  of  "in- 
solvency" were  hurting  the  city's  credit  to  the  extent 
of  $10,000,000.  Judge  Harry  M.  Fisher's  decision  that 
the  city  has  no  cause  of  action  against  the  Tribune  is 
greeted  by  the  press  with  phrases  recalling  the  historian's 
verdict  in  the  case  of  old  Zenger.  "Free  Government 
Upheld  in  Chicago,"  "The  Freedom  of  the  Press  Vindi- 
cated," "No  Crime  to  Criticize  Officials,"  "A  Victory 
for  Free  Speech,"  "Freedom  of  the  Press,"  are  sample 
headlines.  The  suit,  according  to  the  New  York  Eve- 
ning Post,  "was  as  impudent  an  attempt  as  has  ever  been 
made  to  silence  criticism  of  public  officials  in  this  coun- 
try." "Another  insolent  attack  on  the  constitutional 
freedom  of  the  press"  has  now  been  decisively  repelled, 
says  the  Philadelphia  Bulletin. 

In  Chicago,  The  Evening  Post  finds  Judge  Fisher's  de- 
cision "a  healthy  thing  for  municipal  government,"  upon 


[58] 


which  "the  people  of  Chicago  together  with  newspapers 
everywhere  are  to  be  congratulated."  The  Chicago 
Tribune  itself,  while  remarking  that  any  comment  of  its 
own  might  be  discounted  because  of  selfish  interest,  be- 
lieves that  Americans  throughout  the  country  "will 
realize  that  the  decision  is  a  noteworthy  assertion  of 
American  constitutional  right."  If  such  a  suit,  it  says, 
were  to  be  sustained  in  law,  "all  criticism  of  public  ad- 
ministration would  rest  under  the  paralyzing  threat  of 
exhausting  or  completely  destructive  attack  by  politicians 
in  power,"  and  "no  more  fatal  assault  upon  the  liberties 
of  the  individual  could  be  devised."  For  the  most  part 
the  Tribune  contents  itself  with  summarizing  the  Judge's 
decision,  which  goes  deeply  into  the  principles  involved. 
Before  the  court  hearings  were  held  the  Tribune  an- 
nounced to  its  readers  that  "to  coerce  or  destroy  the 
Tribune  was  the  immediate  purpose  of  this  suit,  the  in- 
timidation of  all  newspapers  and  prevention  of  free 
speech  the  second  objective;  and,  as  the  Tribune  has 
evidence  to  prove,  the  overturning  of  the  republican 
form  of  government  was  its  ultimate  goal." 

It  appears  from  Judge  Fisher's  decision  that  the  city 
government  of  Chicago  took  exception  to  a  number  of 
Tribune  articles  in  the  Small  campaign,  particularly 
to  one  referring  to  the  city  as  "broke,"  "bankrupt"  and 
"insolvent";  complaining  that  they  gave  the  impression 
"that  the  management  of  the  administrative  and  gov- 
ernmental affairs  of  plaintiff  were  conducted  in  a  corrupt 
and  incompetent  manner,"  and  finally  that  "said  griev- 
ances" damaged  the  city  in  its  "good  name,  reputation 
and  financial  credit"  to  the  extent  of  $10,000,000.  Judge 
Fisher  holds  that  the  right  to  free  expression  of  opinion 
is  only  limited  by  restraints  against  blasphemy,  im- 
morality, sedition  and  defamation.  But  defamation  or 
libel  "is  that  class  of  prohibited  publication  which  affects 
only  private  persons,"  and  can  not  hold  against  munici- 
palities. They  "have  no  character  or  reputation  to 
defend.  They  exist  to  conserve  order  and  advance  the 
public  good."  As  regards  the  position  of  the  press,  the 
Judge  said  in  part,  as  reported  in  the  Chicago  papers: 

"It  is  not  only  a  great  privilege  but,  to  my  mind,  a  posi- 
tive moral  duty  of  those  who  have  the  facility  to  keep  a 
watchful  eye  and  to  give  generous  expression  on  all  public 


[59] 


matters,  the  knowledge  of  which  few  citizens  could  obtain 
even  when  personally  seeking  it. 

*  'Fortunately,  while  the  good  the  press  is  capable  of  ren- 
dering, if  unafraid,  is  without  limit,  the  harm  it  can  do 
has  its  own  limitations.  It  cannot  long  indulge  in  falsehood 
without  suffering  the  loss  of  that  confidence  from  which 
alone  comes  its  power,  its  prestige  and  its  reward. 

"On  the  other  hand,  the  harm  which  certainly  would  re- 
sult to  the  community  from  an  officialdom  unrestrained 
by  fear  of  publicity  is  incalculable. 

"The  honest  official  seldom  fears  criticism." 

"This  action,"  said  Judge  Fisher,  in  summing  up  his 
reasons  for  giving  judgment  for  the  defendant,  "is  not 
in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our 
institutions.  It  does  not  belong  to  our  day.  It  fits 
in  rather  with  the  genius  of  the  rulers  who  conceived 
law  not  in  the  purity  of  love  for  justice,  but  in  the  lustful 
passion  for  undisturbed  power." 

It  is  not  surprising  that  a  judicial  decision  which  eulo- 
gizes the  press  while  emphasizing  its  privileges  should 
receive  apparently  unanimous  editorial  approval.  A 
wire  to  Mayor  Thompson  failed  to  draw  a  word  from  him 
to  help  us  state  his  side  of  the  case.  It  is  perhaps  fair 
to  assume  that  Corporation  Counsel  Ettelson  spoke  for 
the  entire  city  administration  when  he  told  a  Chicago 
Tribune  reporter:  "We  have  decided  to  make  no  com- 
ment except  to  say  that  we  think  Judge  Fisher's  decision 
is  wrong." 


BROOKLYN  (N.  Y.)  Eagle,  Oct.  16, 

An  Absurd  Suit  Dismissed 

Of  all  the  libel  suits  ever  brought  against  newspapers 
in  this  country  the  most  absurd  in  origin  and  purpose  was 
that  started  by  Mayor  Thompson  of  Chicago  against 
the  Tribune  of  that  city.  The  Tribune  had  assailed 
the  Thompson  administration,  declaring  that  it  was 
ruining  Chicago,  and  Thompson  caused  suit  to  be  brought 
against  it  on  the  ground  that  its  charges  had  injured 
the  city's  financial  credit  to  the  extent  of  $10,000,000. 
Throwing  the  suit  out  of  court  Judge  Fisher  character- 
ized it  as  "not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  or 
object  of  our  institutions."  And  to  this  he  added: 
"It  does  not  belong  to  our  day,  but  rather  to  the  day 


[60] 


\\lini  monarchs  promulgated  laws  with  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  their  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed  power." 
It  is  worth  recalling  that  when  newspaper  attacks 
were  directed  against  thr  Government  of  New  York 
City  as  it  was  under  the  control  of  \Yilliam  M.  Tweed 
and  his  associate  thieves  precisely  the  same  reply  was 
made  from  official  circles.  The  credit  of  the  city  and 
its  reputation  abroad  were  being  hurt  by  newspaper 
criticism.  We  have  heard  that  cry  revived  in  behalf 
of  the  present  New  York  City  Government.  But  Mayor 
Hylan,  though  he  has  urged  business  men  to  withdraw 
advertising  from  what  he  calls  "the  hate-crazed  press," 
has  never  progressed  so  far  in  stupid  retaliation  against 
his  critics  as  did  Mayor  Thompson.  The  latter  occupies 
a  lonely  and  unenviable  eminence.  The  court  has  stuck 
him  in  a  pillory  from  which  he  will  not  soon  escape. 

BUFFALO  (N.  Y.)  Express,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

It  was  a  peculiar  city  government  which  imagined  that 
the  city  of  Chicago  could  maintain  a  successful  libel 
suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune.  The  attempt  was  of 
much  the  same  character  as  the  effort  to  assert  the 
principle  in  behalf  of  Governor  Small  that  the  king  can 
do  no  wrong.  The  court's  decision  against  the  city 
must  have  been  expected  even  by  the  lawyers  whom  the 
city  employed. 

BUFFALO  (N.  Y.)  Courier,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

In  throwing  out  of  court  the  suit  for  $10,000,000 
which  the  city  of  Chicago  had  brought  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  for  alleged  libel  by  the  Tribune  in 
publishing  statements  that  the  city  was  bankrupt, 
the  court  said:  'This  suit  is  not  in  harmony  with 
the  genius,  spirit  or  objects  of  our  institutions." 

BUFFALO  (N.  Y.)  Times,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Chicago  Would  Have  Lost  if  It  Had 
Been  Winner 

Every  city,  Chicago  included,  is  to  be  congratulated 
that  the  $10,000,000  libel  suit  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune,  was  thrown  out  of  court. 


[61] 


A  great  principle  was  at  stake  here. 

If  it  were  once  established  that  a  municipality  could 
maintain  an  action  in  damages  against  a  newspaper  for 
criticizing  a  municipal  administration,  cities  would  be 
compelled  to  run  the  risk  of  being  deprived  of  that  great 
safeguard — an  outspoken  newspaper  press. 

Chicago  would  have  been  the  loser  if  it  had  been  the 
winner  of  this  suit,  brought  in  Chicago's  name  but  in 
opposition  to  its  welfare. 

AUBURN  (N.  Y.)  Citizen,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

A  Free  Press 

Some  time  ago,  following  an  election  in  Chicago,  the 
mayor  of  that  city  brought  an  action  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  charging  libel,  to  the  extent  of  $10,000,000 
damage  done  to  the  city.  The  action  was  the  result  of 
an  attack  on  Mayor  Thompson,  charging  incompetence 
and  showing  how  the  city  had  suffered  under  his  direction. 

In  reply  to  it,  The  Chicago  Tribune  entered  a  demurrer. 
This  means  the  paper  admitted  the  truth  of  the  matter, 
but  held  that  it  was  insufficient  in  law  to  sustain  the 
claim.  The  case  has  now  ended  with  the  judge  uphold- 
ing the  Tribune's  demurrer.  It  is  a  victory  for  a  free 
press  in  this  country. 

The  laws  of  libel  as  concern  newspapers  are  very 
broad,  and  in  many  ways  the  papers  are  cramped  in 
their  duties  to  the  public  by  the  limitations  imposed. 
But  in  a  political  campaign,  the  limit  is  raised,  and  news- 
papers are  more  free  to  say  what  they  think  of  individ- 
uals and  what  they  advise  in  policy  in  a  manner  not 
customary  in  ordinary  times.  Besides,  public  men  are 
open  to  attack  which  in  the  case  of  private  citizens  might 
constitute  libel.  It  should  not  be  otherwise. 

"The  press,"  says  the  decision,  "has  become  the  eyes  and 
ears  of  the  world.  It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the 
appeal  of  the  suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our 
officials  and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in 
their  power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the 
force  which  unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts 
of  public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would 
continue  undismayed  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich 
reward  of  the  unscrupulous  demagogue." 


[62] 


A  free  press  is  perhaps  the  most  important  institution 
in  any  country.  The  truth  in  all  matters  must  he  made 
known,  and  where  censorship  exists,  truth  is  suppressed. 
Too  strict  construction  of  the  libel  laws,  especially  where 
public  men  are  concerned,  is  similar  in  effect  to  censor- 
ship. Tf  a  newspaper  is  not  free  to  express  its  opinions 
within  the  bounds  of  decency,  the  most  fundamental 
of  our  liberties  are  in  danger. 

UTICA  (N.  Y.)  News,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

In  newspaper  circles  attention  has  been  called  to  the 
libel  suit  for  $10,000,000  brought  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  by  the  municipal  authorities  of  that  city.  The 
newspaper  had  criticized  the  administration,  pointed 
out  where  it  had  wasted  the  public  funds  and  brought 
accusations  right  and  left  which  it  claimed  to  be  supported 
by  facts  and  figures  cited.  The  Thompson  adminis- 
tration claimed  that  they  and  the  municipality  had  been 
damaged  thereby,  but  when  the  case  was  brought  into 
court,  Judge  Fisher  dismissed  it,  standing  by  the  prin- 
ciple that  officeholders  are  and  ought  to  be  subjected  to 
the  publication  of  whatever  disclosures  the  case  warrants, 
and  that  the  effort  to  do  so  on  the  part  of  the  newspapers 
is  commendable  and  one  of  the  best  protections  and  safe- 
guards the  people  have. 

BUFFALO  (N.  Y.)  Times,  Oct.  21,  1921. 

"A  Daniel  Come  to  Judgment" 

IN  THESE  DAYS  THIS  IS  NOT  ONLY  THE 
PLEASANTEST  KIND  OF  NEWS,  BUT 
IT  IS  ALSO  VERY  RARE  IN 
THE  DESPATCHES 

The  City  of  Chicago  some  time  ago  instituted  a  very 
novel  suit  against  two  newspapers  for  criticising  the 
municipal  government  as  to  its  financial  methods,  and, 
as  charged  in  the  complaint,  for  injuring  the  credit  of 
the  City  so  that  it  could  not  sell  its  bonds.  The  case 
recently  came  to  trial,  and  the  Federal  Judge  sustained 
the  demurrer  entered  by  one  of  the  defendants  claiming 
no  cause  of  action.  In  the  hurry  and  rush  of  American 


[63] 


life,  this  decision  will  probably  pass  unheeded  by  the  vast 
majority  of  our  citizens;  but  it  upholds  one  of  the  funda- 
mental rights  underlying  all  genuinely  free  government. 
The  soul  of  the  opinion  is  set  forth  in  the  following  words 
of  the  Judge,  that,— 

"The  harm  which  would  certainly  result  to  a  community 

from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity  is 

incalculable." 

He  further  stated  that, 

"At  the  very  inception  of  this  Government  liberty  of 
speech  and  of  the  press  was  regarded  as  indispensable  to  a 
free  state," 

adding,  that  those  who  attempted  to  check  the  passion 
for  it  have  been  branded  by  history  as  barbarians  and 
tyrants. 

No  more  interesting,  or  more  strenuous,  or  more  im- 
portant chapters  of  Anglo-Saxon  progress  exist  than  the 
history  of  the  struggle  for  free  press,  free  speech  and  the 
corollary  of  both,  the  right  of  peaceable  assemblage.  On 
these  three  rights  rests  the  whole  structure  of  modern 
civilization,  and  of  liberty,  present  and  to  come.  It  is 
glad  news,  therefore,  that  a  Federal  Judge  not  only 
knows  this  history,  but  has  the  courage  authoritatively  to 
declare  it,  and  the  lucid  language  with  which  to  clothe 
it  with  a  new  vitality. 

"Bureaucracy"  in  this  country,  the  crystallization  of 
departmental  machinery,  the  petrification  (first  cousin 
to  putrefaction)  of  precedents  have  grown  to  be  formid- 
able agencies  for  the  delaying,  the  denial,  and  in  fact  the 
obliteration  of  justice,  which  evils  can  be  successfully 
fought  only  by  a  free  press,  by  free  speech  and  free  assem- 
blage. One  by  one  the  Federal  Judges  are  becoming 
aware  that  there  are  still  in  this  Republic  sovereign  citizens 
who  remember  Magna  Charta  and  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

NEWARK  (N.  J.)  Star,  Sept.  27,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press  in  Chicago  Libel 

Action 

Because  it  is  said  to  be  entirely  without  precedent  in 
the  United  States,  vast  interest  will  attach  to  the  suit  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  for  $10,000,000  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  for  libel.  Its  importance  can  scarcely  be  exag- 


[64] 


gerated,  because  involved  in  it  is  the  question  of  what 
does  and  what  does  not  constitute  that  freedom  of  the 
press  which  is  guaranteed  by  the  very  first  amendment 
to  the  Federal  Constitution  and  by  the  constitutions  of 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  states. 

Does  the  liability  of  a  newspaper  for  its  criticisms, 
which  is  recognized  in  the  case  of  individuals,  extend  to 
incorporated  municipalities?  That  is  the  question  at  issue, 
involved  with  another,  which  is  how,  if  at  all,  it  is  possible 
to  measure  the  intangible  and  determine  to  what  extent 
the  criticism  of  a  city's  finances  in  a  particular  journal 
has  injured  its  credit,  and,  that  being  determined,  how 
that  loss  of  credit  is  calculable  in  dollars  and  cents. 

The  basis  of  the  suit,  brought  in  the  city's  name,  is 
not  that  responsible  officials,  who  would  have  recourse 
in  individual  suits  for  libel,  were  attacked,  but  that  the 
integrity  of  the  city  as  a  solvent  and  going  concern, 
under  the  methods  being  pursued,  was  assailed.  Now  if 
a  free  press  can  be  restrained,  in  principle,  from  criticizing 
what  it  considers  to  be  faulty  financing,  and  can  be  kept 
from  open  condemnation  of  practices  it  believes  to  be 
ruinous,  does  it  not  follow  that  the  whole  body  of  ex- 
pressed journalistic  opinion  is  at  stake? 

Would  the  musical  critic  be  safe  in  saying  that  the 
soprano  was  not  in  her  best  voice,  or  the  dramatic  critic 
in  pointing  out  the  weak  structure  of  a  play  or  the 
faultiness  of  acting?  These  are  not  reflections  upon  per- 
sonal character,  but  upon  the  merit  of  performance,  and 
in  a  sense  fall  in  the  same  category  as  the  Chicago  paper's 
excoriation  of  municipal  finance.  If  the  conduct  of  the 
people's  business  is  not  subject  to  review  and  criticism 
by  the  responsible  organs  to  which  they  look  for  enlighten- 
ment, what  protection  have  they  against  intrenched 
authorities  perpetuating  themselves  in  office  by  bestowing 
what  appear  to  be  present  benefits  while  piling  up  an 
inheritance  of  knotty  difficulties  for  the  future  to  solve? 

It  is  notable  that  it  is  the  Thompsons  and  the  Hylans 
and  the  Gillens  of  politics  that  are  most  vociferous  in 
their  onslaughts  upon  the  newspapers,  interpreting 
criticism  of  official  conduct  as  attacks  upon  themselves 
as  individuals,  and  ascribing  to  the  comment  an  animus 
it  does  not  possess.  It  is  unthinkable  that  the  sort  of 
ideas  they  cherish  can  prevail  against  that  freedom  that 


[65] 


is  the  constitutional  guaranty  of  the  press,  not  for  its 
own  sake,  but  only  in  order  that  a  whole  people  may  be 
informed  of  the  truth. 


ASBURY  PARK  (N.  J.)  Press,  Oct.  3,  1921. 

Blow  at  Free  Press 

The  city  of  Chicago  is  trying  out  a  novel  experiment. 
It  is  suing  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  ten  million  dollars 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  libeled  by  that  publication. 
The  city  holds  that  the  Tribune's  attacks  were  untrue, 
that  they  tended  to  impair  confidence  and  undermine 
credit  and  as  a  result  had  a  disastrous  effect  upon  the 
municipality's  plans  to  borrow  money. 

The  point  raised  is  an  interesting  one.  A  corporation 
has  redress  in  law  if  it  is  attacked.  There  was  a  time 
when  a  corporation  could  not  sue  for  libel.  Corporation 
lawyers  had  a  bill  passed  in  most  states  that  gave  the 
corporation  the  libel  status  of  the  individual.  The  result 
is  that  the  city  of  Chicago  comes  into  court. 

If  the  city  of  Chicago  were  to  win  its  suit,  the  entire 
plant  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  would  be  wiped  out.  More- 
over, if  the  city  were  to  win  its  suit,  no  newspaper  would 
dare  criticize  the  financial  management  of  any  of  our 
municipalities.  The  suit,  the  Tribune  says,  represents 
an  attempt  to  throttle  the  press.  And  so  it  is.  The  case 
is  one  that  will  be  watched  with  unusual  interest. 

CAMDEN  (N.  J.)  Post-Telegram,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  Victory  for  a  Free  Press 

It  was  a  new  and  novel  proposition  in  American  juris- 
prudence that  a  newspaper  could  be  sued  by  a  munici- 
pality for  libel.  The  City  of  Chicago,  by  its  mayor, 
brought  an  action  for  libel  against  The  Chicago  Tribune, 
claiming  $10,000,000  damages.  In  sustaining  the  de- 
murrer entered  by  the  Tribune  Judge  Fisher  said  that  if 
the  suit  could  be  maintained  "then  public  officials  would 
have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective  instruments 
with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  silence  their 
enemies.  It  would  be  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head 


[66] 


of  every  one  who  dared  to  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of 
the  men  in  power." 

Municipal  abuses  cannot  be  corrected  unless  the  com- 
munity is  fully  informed  as  to  maladministration  and  it 
looks  to  the  local  press  to  supply  this  information.  The 
newspaper  performs  a  public  function  in  exposing  mu- 
nicipal delinquencies. 

Public  officials  if  libeled  may  sue  and  get  damages,  the 
samr  as  the  private  citizen.  But  if  they  could  command 
the  vast  power  and  unlimited  resources  of  the  munici- 
pality to  punish  or  suppress  the  newspaper  that  had  the 
temerity  to  criticize  their  official  actions,  corruption 
would  have  full  sway  in  our  cities,  with  gang  rule  and 
terrorism  making  property  and  life  unsafe. 

As  Judge  Fisher  says:  "The  freedom  of  speech  and  of 
the  press  was,  at  the  very  inception  of  our  government, 
regarded  as  indispensable  to  a  free  State."  In  these  latter 
days  the  enlarged  corrupting  power  of  wealth,  the  growth 
of  our  cities  and  the  development  of  political  machine 
methods  to  dominate  municipal  administration  put  upon 
the  press  a  tremendous  responsibility  to  serve  the  people 
by  exposing  weakness,  venality  and  lawlessness  in  public 
affairs.  To  the  credit  of  the  press,  be  it  said,  it  performs 
its  public  duty  fearlessly  and  honestly. 

To  suppress  criticism,  as  Mayor  Thompson  attempted 
to  do,  would  be  to  foster  all  the  vicious  and  evil  features 
of  corrupt  administration,  and  subvert  the  genius,  spirit 
and  objects  of  our  institutions. 

PATERSON  (N.  J.)  Press-Guardian,  Oct.  22,  1921. 

Free  Press  Upheld 

When  he  brought  a  $10,000,000  libel  suit  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  be- 
cause of  criticisms  of  his  administration,  Mayor  Thomp- 
son must  have  known  that  he  had  little  chance  of  success. 
Free  criticism  of  public  officials  or  their  administrations 
has  been  a  popular  institution  of  this  country  from  the 
outset  as  well  as  one  of  its  most  important  safeguards. 
Journalistic  freedom  has  been  and  is  sometimes  abused, 
but,  as  Thomas  Jefferson  once  wisely  said,  even  that  is 
"a  part  of  the  price  we  pay  for  our  liberty,  which  can  not 


[67] 


be  guarded  but  by  the  freedom  of  the  press,  nor  that  be 
limited  without  danger  of  losing  it." 

Jefferson  made  this  memorable  statement  in  1786. 
Fifty  years  later  De  Tocqueville,  the  visiting  French 
writer,  noted  that  no  American  had  "as  yet  dared  to 
propose  any  restriction  on  the  liberty  of  the  press."  Now, 
135  years  later,  the  same  may  be  said  —  unless  we  except 
Mayor  Thompson's  libel  suit  and  its  transparent  aim. 

That  The  Chicago  Tribune's  demurrer  to  the  Thompson 
libel  suit  would  be  sustained  by  Judge  Fisher  of  the 
Circuit  Court  could  almost  have  been  regarded  as  a  fore- 
gone conclusion.  Judge  Fisher  upholds  not  only  the 
Tribune  but  a  free  press  in  general  and  the  right  of  the 
people  to  be  fully  informed  concerning  their  own  affairs 
and  interests. 

"The  Press,"  he  says,  "has  become  the  eyes  and  ears 
of  the  world,"  and  further:  "It  is  the  spokesman  of  the 
weak  and  the  appeal  of  the  suffering.  It  holds  up  for 
review  the  acts  of  our  officials  and  of  those  men  in  high 
places  who  have  it  in  their  power  to  advance  peace  or 
endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  unifies  public  senti- 
ment. But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  benefactors  would  go 
unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undismayed,  and 
public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupulous 
demagogue." 

In  this  decision  the  Thompsons  of  every  section  are 
duly  warned  that  they  can  never  reverse  popular  sentiment 
in  this  connection,  based  as  it  is  on  the  command  of  the 
Constitution  itself:  "Congress  shall  make  no  law  abridg- 
ing the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press." 


MILLVILLE  (N.  J.)  Republican,  Nov.  5, 

Rights  of  the  Press 

As  some  people  connected  with  the  Millville  city 
government  appear  to  be  obsessed  with  the  idea  that  the 
only  function  of  a  newspaper  is  to  pleasantly  pat  officials 
on  the  back,  and  that  when  it  criticizes  and  shows  up 
their  failures  it  is  a  plague,  it  is  not  out  of  place  to  quote 
from  the  decision  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher,  of  Chicago,  in 
\\liichhethrewoutof  court  the  $10,000,000  suit  brought 
in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against  the  Tribune 


[68] 


of  that  city.  The  newspaper  had  been  very  severe  in 
its  strictures  on  the  rotten  city  government  of  Boss 
Thompson.  It  asserted  that  in  reality,  through  prof- 
ligacy, the  city  was  bankrupt.  Thompson  set  up  the 
claim  that  the  Tribune's  articles  had  injured  the  credit 
of  the  city  and  brought  suit  to  recover  $10,000,000.  In 
reality  the  suit  was  instituted  by  Thompson  for  personal 
revenge.  In  his  decision  Judge  Fisher  among  other  things 
said : 

"The  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  was,  at  the  very 
inception  of  our  government,  regarded  as  indispensable  to 
a  free  State.  Those  who  attempted  to  check  the  passion 
for  it  were  branded  by  history  as  barbarians  and  tyrants. 

"The  harm  which  would  certainly  result  to  the  community 
from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity  is 
incalculable." 

Judge  Fisher,  in  an  answer  to  the  contention  of  the 
city  that  the  same  restraints  that  prevent  libel  of  public 
officials  should  operate  to  protect  municipalities,  held 
that,  while  a  newspaper  might  not  recklessly  pry  into 
the  personal  affairs  of  officials,  no  reason  exists  for  re- 
straining publication  against  a  government  agency  of 
such  facts  as  it  is  well  for  the  public  to  know. 

Judge  Fisher  extolled  the  part  which  newspapers  play 
in  modern  industrial  and  social  development  and  in 
times  of  national  stress. 

LANCASTER  (Pa.)  Examiner,  Sept.  23,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press 

The  Chicago  Tribune,  one  of  the  leading  newspapers  of 
the  Middle  West,  is  fighting  for  its  life.  It  is  the  defend- 
ant in  a  ten  million  dollar  libel  suit  brought  by  the  city 
of  Chicago. 

Chicago's  municipal  government  at  the  present  time 
is  under  the  control  of  the  Thompson  machine.  In  the 
campaign  last  fall  the  Tribune  fought  it  most  vigorously, 
and  criticized  officials  from  the  mayor  down  without 
mercy.  The  Thompson  men  contend  that  the  news 
articles  and  editorial  expressions  damaged  the  city's 
credit,  and  have  sued  for  the  total  amount  of  the  news- 
paper's property.  If  it  should  lose,  it  would  have  to 
discontinue  publication. 


[69] 


Certainly  a  victory  by  the  city  would  be  a  most  un- 
fortunate precedent.  The  freedom  of  the  press  must 
not  be  impaired.  The  Tribune  did  not  libel  individuals; 
it  did  not  assault  our  system  of  government;  it  merely  at- 
tacked the  manner  in  which  certain  individuals  were  con- 
ducting the  government,  and  was,  we  believe,  within 
its  rights  in  so  doing. 

Suppose  the  Wilson  Administration  had  entered  suit 
against  every  Republican  paper  that  criticized  it  for 
mismanagement.  The  courts  would  have  been  too  busy 
with  the  many  cases  involved  to  consider  any  other 
litigation  for  many  months. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Evening  Public  Ledger,  Sept.  23, 1921. 

"Whom  the  Gods  Destroy"— 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  New  York  and  in 
Chicago  frenzied  attacks  have  just  been  directed  at 
great  newspapers  by  powerful  politicians  temporarily 
in  possession  of  public  offices.  New  York  and  Chicago 
are  gang-ridden. 

Mayor  Hylan,  in  one  of  the  most  astonishing  procla- 
mations ever  issued  by  a  public  official  in  the  United 
States,  calls  upon  all  "merchants,  business  men  and  shop- 
keepers" to  visit  reprisals  on  newspapers  that  have  been 
criticizing  his  Administration. 

The  outburst  seems  to  have  been  prompted  by  edi- 
torial criticism  of  police  officials  who  sent  mounted  squads 
Cossack-fashion  to  ride  down  a  crowd  of  unemployed 
folk. 

In  Chicago  the  Tribune  has  been  taken  into  court  to 
fight  a  $10,000,000  suit  for  libel  instituted  by  "the  City  of 
Chicago."  The  "City  of  Chicago"  in  this  case  is  the 
political  tong  whose  offenses  the  Tribune  exposed. 

Newspapers  cannot  make  a  bad  politician  good.  But 
they  can  worry  and  keep  him  on  edge. 

Silence  or  censor  them  for  a  day  and  every  loot-hun- 
gry political  thug  would  feel  that  he  had  drifted  by  acci- 
dent into  Heaven. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Record,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  is  not  without  justification  in 
claiming  that  the  suit  of  the  city  against  it  for  $10,000,000 


[70] 


is  an  effort  to  intimidate  the  press.  Of  course,  if  the 
Tribune's  statements  about  the  city's  finances  were  un- 
true it  deserves  sonic  penally,  and  it'  I  hey  were  malicious 
the  penalty  might  be  severe.  But  American  cities  are 
notoriously  badly  governed,  and  the  only  protection 
the  public  has  lies  in  vigilant  criticisms  by  the  newspapers. 
A  suit  for  $10,000,000  looks  like  intimidation,  and  it  will 
be  a  great  time  for  crooked  bosses  if  the  newspapers  can 
be  scared  out  of  handling  municipal  politicians  without 
gloves. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Evening  Public  Ledger,  Sept.  24, 1921. 

The  Muzzle 

To  fully  understand  the  line  of  reasoning  followed  by 
the  politicians  who,  as  temporary  occupants  of  important 
public  offices,  have  sued  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  $10,- 
000,000  damages  because  of  that  newspaper's  criticism 
of  their  official  acts,  it  is  necessary  to  follow  it  to  the 
logical  conclusion. 

The  suit  is  being  pressed  in  the  name  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  which,  in  the  complaint  against  the  Tribune, 
is  alleged  to  have  suffered  material  losses  because  of  the 
attacks  made  upon  public  administrators.  The  Tribune 
is  not  charged  with  telling  any  untruth.  Therefore  it 
appears  to  be  the  feeling  of  the  complainants  that  evil 
or  error  in  public  affairs  matters  not  at  all.  Do  any  wild 
or  foolish  or  criminal  thing  and  fear  not;  but  talk  about 
these  things,  draw  public  attention  to  them,  and  you  are 
a  criminal! 

Members  of  Congress,  Judges  in  the  courts  and  minis- 
ters in  their  pulpits  ought  to  be  interested  in  this  view 
as  it  is  expressed  by  a  representative  group  of  office- 
holders in  Chicago.  If  it  were  to  be  accepted  or  support- 
ed by  a  court  decision  or  a  jury's  verdict — and  there  is  no 
danger  that  it  will  be — a  Senator  or  Representative  of  one 
party  might  be  haled  to  court  for  public  criticism  of  his 
opponents  on  the  floor,  and  the  courts  themselves  might 
be  assailed  for  giving  a  man  a  bad  reputation  by  declaring 
him  guilty  of  a  crime. 

Ministers  of  religion  would  be  required  to  believe  that 
sin  doesn't  matter  so  long  as  you  do  not  talk  about  it  or 


[71] 


seem  to  be  aware  of  its  existence.  They  might  be  called 
upon  to  pay  heavy  damages  to  the  communities  in  which 
they  labor  for  merely  intimating  that  all  the  folk  who 
compose  their  various  congregations  are  not  pure  in 
spirit  and  utterly  blameless  in  their  daily  lives. 

The  movement  for  a  muzzled  press  was  supposed  to 
have  ended  with  the  departure  of  Palmer  and  Burleson 
from  public  office.  But  it  has  been  revived  suddenly 
in  Chicago.  It  will  have  a  short  life  this  time.  The 
suit  against  the  Tribune  is  as  silly  as  it  is  vicious. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Record,  Sept.  27,  1921. 

If  Mayor  Thompson  can  show  that  the  City  of  Chicago 
has  suffered  $10,000,000  damage  through  the  criticism 
of  his  administration  by  the  Tribune  of  that  city,  how 
much  could  Tom  Smith  have  collected  if  he  could  have 
mulcted  the  newspapers  of  Philadelphia  for  their  caustic 
remarks  on  his  regime  here?  At  least  $20,000,000,  we 
should  say.  And  there  would  seem  to  be  just  as  much 
justification  for  such  a  procedure  in  this  city  as  there 
appears  to  be  for  "Big  Bill's"  effort  to  penalize  the  too 
independent  Tribune  for  its  antagonism  to  his  methods 
in  Chicago.  Honest  criticism  is  not  to  be  dodged  in  this 
fashion  by  political  bosses. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Evening  Public  Ledger,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Criticism  Is  Not  Criminal 

The  right  of  newspapers  to  criticize  the  city  adminis- 
tration is  sustained  by  Judge  Fisher,  of  Chicago,  who  has 
dismissed  the  suit  for  $10,000,000  damages  brought  by  the 
City  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  injuries 
alleged  to  have  been  caused  by  the  Tribune's  criticism  of 
the  financial  condition  of  the  city. 

It  was  charged  that  the  Tribune's  criticisms  injured 
the  public  credit.  The  motive  for  the  suit  was  political. 
The  action  was  an  attempt  to  silence  the  critics  of  the 
present  Administration.  It  was  thus  thought  that  crit- 
icism could  be  silenced  by  haling  the  critics  into  court  and 
demanding  heavy  damages  from  them. 

The  custom  of  free  speech  in  the  discussion  of  public 


[72] 


affairs    is    of  too   long   standing  for  it   to   be  suddenly 
stopped  as  the  Chicngo  politicians  tried  to  stop  it. 

The  Court  has  interpreted  (he  law  in  accordance  with 
the  spirit  of  American  institutions.  While  its  decision 
is  of  peculiar  interest  to  newspapers,  it  is  of  vital  im- 
portance to  the  whole  people.  The  newspapers  regard 
themselves  as  commissioned  to  safeguard  the  public  in- 
terests and  to  expose  everything  which  threatens  those 
interests.  The  people  look  to  them  for  information 
about  what  is  happening  in  government  and  for  instruc- 
tion as  to  the  significance  of  it.  If  they  are  to  perform 
their  proper  functions  they  must  be  free  to  say  when  a 
public  official  has  been  unfaithful  to  his  trust  and  to 
point  out  how  he  has  violated  it  and  what  the  effects  of 
that  violation  are.  The  Chicago  Judge  has  sustained 
their  right  to  do  those  things. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Public  Ledger,  Oct  17,  1921. 

Press  Freedom  Upheld 

The  City  of  Chicago,  or  rather  that  part  of  it  repre- 
sented by  Mayor  Thompson  and  "Thompsonism,"  has 
lost  its  suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune.  It  was  the 
contention  of  the  city's  attorneys  that  the  Tribune  and 
the  Chicago  Daily  News  had  "libeled"  Chicago  in  print- 
ing criticisms  of  the  corporate  acts  of  the  municipality. 
Damages  in  the  sum  of  $10,000,000  were  asked. 

On  the  face  of  it  the  suit  was  brought  to  stop  the  mouths 
of  Chicago  newspapers  in  the  future  and  to  punish  them 
for  what  they  had  done  to  the  thing  called  "Thompson- 
ism"  in  the  past.  In  sustaining  the  demurrer  filed  by  the 
Tribune,  Judge  Fisher  pointed  out  that  if  the  city's 
action  was  held  maintainable, 

then  public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of 
the  most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the 
press  and  to  silence  their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be 
held  over  the  head  of  every  one  who  dares  print  or  speak 
unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 

So  ends  a  dangerous  and  insolent  attempt  by  one  of 
the  most  arrogant  of  political  "machines"  to  maintain 
itself  in  power  and  to  outlaw,  crush  and  silence  all  possi- 
ble effective  criticism  of  itself  and  its  acts.  The  ruling 
made  was  the  expected  ruling.  Upholding  the  conten- 


[73] 


tions  of  the  city  would  have  meant  that  no  matter  how 
corrupt,  how  dangerous  or  sinister  any  official  might  be, 
he  would  be  able  to  use  the  powers  of  the  municipality 
in  hiding  his  crookedness  and  infirmities.  With  the 
taxpayers'  money  he  could  prosecute  any  taxpayer  who 
publicly  questioned  his  crookedness. 

To  accept  any  such  doctrine  would  be  to  prepare  the 
way  for  a  period  of  municipal  corruption  and  debauchery 
that  would  smell  to  heaven.  Extended  to  State  and  na- 
tional Government,  it  would  mean  the  end  of  popular 
government  and  a  quick  drift  to  self -perpetuating  autoc- 
racies built  on  a  lust  for  undisturbed  and  unending  power. 

PHILADELPHIA  (Pa.)  Bulletin,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Press  Freedom  Vindicated 

Another  insolent  attack  on  the  constitutional  freedom 
of  the  press  is  decisively  repelled  in  the  practical  dismissal 
of  the  libel  suit  for  $10,000,000  brought  nominally  by  the 
city  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune.  The 
real  prosecutors  were  the  preposterous  Mayor  THOMPSON 
who  refused  to  invite  the  King  of  the  Belgians  to  what 
he  termed  "the  sixth  largest  German  city,"  and  his 
associates  in  the  government  or  misgovernment  of  that 
ill-served  municipality.  The  Tribune  has  been  merciless 
in  its  criticisms  of  the  THOMPSON  regime.  It  has  inci- 
dentally asserted  that  they  have  brought  Chicago  to  a 
state  of  bankruptcy.  For  this  reason  THOMPSON  &  Co. 
alleged  that  the  newspaper  had  injured  the  credit  of  their 
beloved  city  to  the  extent  of  $10,000,000. 

The  enterprising  Mayor  had  no  notion  of  substituting 
a  $10,000,000  damage  suit  for  a  municipal  loan.  His 
great  idea  was  to  silence  his  powerful  opponent  and  over- 
awe the  press  in  general.  Merely  to  put  the  newspaper 
to  the  enormous  expense  of  defending  the  case  in  a  lengthy 
trial  would  have  served  his  punitive  purpose.  It  would 
likewise  have  proved  a  deadly  weapon  to  overawe  the 
press  in  every  other  American  city  by  furnishing  a  prec- 
edent for  striking  at  the  freedom  of  newspapers  to  ex- 
amine into  the  acts  of  municipal  officers  and  criticize 
them  in  all  the  fearlessness  of  public  spirit  and  civic 
patriotism. 


[74] 


The  principle  enunciated  by  Judge  HARRY  FISHER, 
that  "the  harm  that  would  result  to  the  community 
from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity  is 
incalculable,"  goes  to  the  root  of  the  controversy.  As 
he  pointed  on  1.  if  public  officials  were  allowed  to  rnain- 
laiu  a  suit  of  this  nature  "they  would  have  in  their  hands 
one  of  the  most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  in- 
timidate the  press  and  silence  their  enemies.  It  would 
be  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of  everyone  who 
dared  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  office." 
So  clear  and  cogent  a  vindication  of  freedom  of  the  press 
in  political  criticism  forms  a  precedent  of  inestimable 
value  in  every  community. 


From  the  Cincinnati  Times-Star  reprinted  in  the 
PITTSBURGH  (Pa.)  Gazette-Times,  Sept.  29,  1921. 

Can  You  Libel  a  City? 

The  suit  of  the  City  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  for  $10,000,000  damages  for  libel  for  saying  that 
the  city  was  "broke"  is,  of  course,  largely  politics.  But 
the  suit  has  an  importance  other  than  personal.  The 
Tribune  declares  that  in  criticizing  the  financial  condition 
of  Chicago  it  was  performing  a  public  service  and  that 
to  permit  a  governmental  entity  to  sue  for  libel  is  to 
entrench  the  party  in  power.  That  the  borrowing  ability 
of  Chicago  has  been  affected  by  the  Tribune's  criticisms 
of  the  financial  policy  of  the  Thompson  administration 
may  be  true.  And  it  ought  to  be  true.  The  pump  in  every 
big  city  is  worked  too  facilely.  All  that  municipal  ad- 
ministrators had  to  do  was  to  approach  with  their  buck- 
ets, and,  presto,  they  were  filled.  And  it  has  been  going 
on  so  long  that  at  last  many  cities  are  able  to  see  the 
bottom  of  their  financial  wells.  What  cities  need  is  not 
so  much  laws  of  libel  as  laws  that  will  permit  them  to 
raise  enough  money  by  taxation  to  enable  them  to  func- 
tion, and  yet  will  prevent  the  wasters  from  dissipating 
the  public  funds,  secured  from  bonds  or  from  taxes,  on 
dishonest  contracts  and  extravagant  schemes. 


[75] 


PITTSBURGH  (Pa.)  Press,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Thompson  Fails  to  Gag  the  Newspapers 

When  Chicago's  machine  mayor,  Thompson,  acting 
ostensibly  in  his  official  capacity,  brought  a  $10,000,000 
libel  suit  in  the  city's  name  against  The  Chicago  Tribune 
for  saying  that  graft  and  extravagant  incompetence  in  the 
public  service  had  reduced  the  city  government  to  virtual 
bankruptcy,  it  was  evident  that  he  was  chafing  under  the 
criticism  and  imagined  that  by  the  intimidation  of  such 
a  libel  suit  he  could  perhaps  silence  the  paper  and  make 
it  easier  for  his  machine  to  carry  the  next  city  election. 

The  Tribune  was  not  frightened  for  a  single  moment 
by  his  "bluff"  but  relied  upon  the  constitutional  guarantee 
of  a  free  press  to  protect  it  in  keeping  the  public  informed 
as  to  Thompson's  maladministration.  It  trusted  the 
common  sense  of  judge  and  jury  to  detect  Thompson's 
purpose.  It  was,  of  course,  his  own  personal  suit,  not 
the  city  of  Chicago's,  which  was  made  to  appear  as  the 
plaintiff. 

The  city  of  Chicago  was  not  being  hurt  but  benefited 
by  the  Tribune's  exposure  of  graft  and  incompetence  in 
office.  Ring  government  does  not  benefit  the  taxpayer 
and  is  not  intended  to.  It  exists  for  the  private  benefit 
of  the  ringsters  and  the  grafters  who  thrive  wherever 
rings  are  in  power.  And  it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the 
duty  of  an  honest  newspaper  to  tell  the  truth  about  it. 

The  Tribune's  confidence  that  no  such  suit  as  Thomp- 
son's would  stand  was  not  misplaced.  Judge  Fisher  has 
not  only  thrown  the  case  out  of  court  but  serves  notice 
on  Thompson  that  a  motion  to  reopen  the  matter  by  the 
filing  of  an  amended  bill  will  not  be  entertained.  The 
opinion  which  accompanies  the  decision  should  be  read 
by  ring  politicians  everywhere.  Their  desire  to  gag  the 
press  is  doomed  to  disappointment  as  long  as  America 
remains  America,  the  home  of  free  government.  Judge 
Fisher  pointed  out  that  if  a  newspaper  is  not  free  to 
criticize  public  officials,  "then  the  latter  have  in  their 
power  one  of  the  most  effective  instruments  with  which 
to  intimidate  the  press  and  to  silence  their  enemies.  It 
is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of  every  one  who 
dares  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 


[76] 


WILLIAMSPORT  (Pa.)  Sun,  Oct.  8,  1921. 

Muzzling  the  Press 

Mayor  Thompson,  of  Chicago,  is  suing  The  Chicago 
Tribune  for  libel. 

The  Tribune  published  a  statement  to  the  effect  that 
the  city  of  Chicago  was  bankrupt,  and  the  mayor  con- 
tends that  the  statement  was  false  and  that  it  was  the 
cause  of  serious  difficulties  when  the  city  tried  to  dispose 
of  its  bonds. 

There  is  a  moral  side  to  this  controversy.  And  it 
seems  that  the  moral  element  outweighs  the  financial  to  a 
considerable  extent. 

Whether  the  Tribune  will  be  forced  ultimately  to  pay 
the  ten  million  dollar  damages  which  the  plaintiff  seeks 
to  extract  from  it  is  a  question  of  importance  to  the  con- 
tending parties  only. 

But  whether  any  government  in  this  land  of  the  free, 
city,  state,  or  federal,  can  destroy  an  important  organ  of 
public  opinion  in  its  entirety  whenever  such  an  organ 
becomes  detrimental  to  its  plans  and  policies,  is  a  ques- 
tion of  the  most  vital  concern  to  every  citizen  of  the 
republic. 

If  the  Chicago  mayor  succeeds  in  crushing  the  well- 
known  morning  paper  a  precedent  will  be  set  to  other 
governments,  city,  state,  and  federal,  so  dangerous  that 
the  ultimate  effect  can  hardly  be  estimated.  It  will  be 
a  nice  bit  of  czaristic  autocracy.  The  freedom  of  the 
press,  as  sacred  as  the  federal  constitution  itself,  will  have 
been  rudely  assaulted.  Squint-eyed  politicians  and  Tam- 
many Hall  men  of  every  description  will  ring  their  liberty 
bells  and  summon  all  their  confederates  to  a  grand  and 
hilarious  "bundesfest." 

When  Lloyd  George,  on  a  recent  occasion,  tried  to 
muzzle  the  London  Times  by  withholding  from  that 
paper  official  information  on  government  affairs,  the 
whole  world  decried  the  act  of  the  British  statesman  as 
both  puerile  and  tyrannical. 

But  Lloyd  George's  act  was  extremely  amateurish. 

It  takes  one  of  our  little  American  despots  to  show  the 
world  how  it  should  be  done.  It  takes  a  product  of  Fe- 
licia Hemans'  "holy  ground,"  upon  which  the  Pilgrims 


[77] 


once  set  their  feet;  it  takes  a  citizen  of  this  "sweet  land 
of  liberty,"  to  wield  the  hickory  club  that  will  deliver 
what  executioners  used  to  call  the  stroke  of  grace. 

If  a  paper  is  actually  guilty  of  libel  it  should  be  made 
to  pay  for  it.  But  you  don't  hang  a  man  for  a  mere 
theft. 

Americans  believe  in  freedom  of  conscience.  That  is 
a  sacred  religious  principle  with  them.  Freedom  of 
conscience  implies  freedom  of  action  and  freedom  of 
expression.  One's  conscience  may  urge  him  to  express 
himself  concerning  a  certain  matter  either  in  private  or 
in  public.  A  public  expression  of  opinion,  or  public 
criticism,  may  at  times  be  very  severe.  But  if  it  is  de- 
served we  ought  to  have  it  and  the  critic  ought  to  be 
praised  for  his  valor. 

American  principles  of  freedom  also  used  to  apply  to 
newspaper  editors.  These  men  are  the  guardians  of 
the  public  weal  in  an  unofficial  sense.  Their  papers  act 
like  checks  upon  conscienceless  governments.  They 
are  sinners  like  the  rest  of  us,  and  for  that  reason  they 
may  go  astray.  But  they  cannot  be  missed  in  the  make- 
up of  this  modern  world.  Their  position  is  one  of  ex- 
treme importance  and  responsibility,  and  unless  they 
prove  wholly  unfaithful  to  their  sacred  trust  and  work 
the  ruin  of  the  public  instead  of  its  welfare,  no  political 
force  should  be  allowed  to  decapitate  them  financially 
or  use  them  as  a  devil's  footpad  for  purposes  of  self- 
aggrandizement. 

The  Chicago  libel  suit  ought  to  interest  every  American 
citizen,  from  Maine  to  California. 
(Copyright,  1921,  Religious  Press  Bureau  of  America.) 

ALLENTOWN  (Pa.)  Call,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

Right  of  Press  to  Criticize  Public 
Officials 

Out  in  Chicago  a  suit  for  $10,000,000  was  brought  by 
the  City  against  the  Tribune  alleging  that  the  credit  of 
the  city  had  been  damaged  to  that  extent  by  certain 
of  the  newspaper's  publications.  That  suit  has  been  dis- 
missed and  the  city  has  lost. 

The  result  of  the  suit  is  one  that  is  heartening  to  pa- 


[78] 


pers  all  over  the  land  and  of  value  to  the  public  in  demon- 
strating again  that  the  freedom  of  the  American  press  is 
not  to  be  throttled. 

The  Tribune  for  years  has  been  merciless  in  its  expose 
of  affairs  as  conducted  by  Mayor  Thompson.  Con- 
stantly the  party  in  power  has  been  stung  to  the  quick. 
Recently  a  bond  issue  was  not  subscribed  for  because  of 
the  fear  that  the  city  was  on  the  road  to  bankruptcy  as 
a  result  of  the  Thompson  policies.  Then  followed  the 
suit. 

Now  it  was  evident  all  along  that  there  was  no  earthly 
hope  of  getting  ten  million  dollars  from  The  Chicago 
Tribune  in  any  court  of  law.  It  was  evident  that  the 
suit  was  not  instituted  for  that  purpose.  The  sole  pur- 
pose was  to  muzzle  the  paper  and  by  muzzling  one  sheet, 
fear  would  be  thrown  into  the  entire  group  of  papers  and 
the  Thompson  party  could  continue  its  conduct  of  Chi- 
cago affairs  undisturbed.  The  suit  was  so  preposterous 
that  the  intent  was  evident,  which  was  to  browbeat  and 
to  inconvenience  by  making  the  paper  the  defendant  in 
a  case  that  could  be  dragged  thru  the  court  for  years  at 
great  expense  and  embarrassment  to  the  latter.  Success 
of  the  Chicago  suit  would  likewise  have  had  its  influence 
on  the  press  in  every  other  city. 

But  the  Chicago  suit  has  failed  and  the  right  of  papers 
to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  public  affairs  emerges  un- 
scathed from  the  attack,  in  fact  it  is  all  the  more  strength- 
ened. In  dismissing  the  case  the  judge  declared  that 
"the  harm  that  would  result  to  the  community  from  an 
officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity  is  incalcu- 
lable." It  summed  up  the  entire  situation  and  defined 
the  rightful  policy  of  the  American  press. 

No  one  with  any  sense  of  decency  believes  in  unwar- 
ranted attacks  upon  public  officials  simply  because 
they  are  officials  and  may  differ  politically  or  otherwise 
from  those  who  write  for  the  papers.  But  that  the  acts 
of  public  officials  are  protected  by  the  Kaiseristic  prin- 
ciple of  "lese  majeste"  is  intolerable  to  American  ways  of 
thinking.  That  it  has  been  completely  destroyed  by  the 
Chicago  verdict  is  of  value  to  the  entire  American  press, 
whose  freedom  must  be  protected  and  defended  with  as 
much  spirit  and  determination  as  the  other  sacred  prin- 
ciples of  the  national  Constitution. 


[79] 


BOSTON  (Mass.)  Globe,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

People  Versus  Polls 

In  the  two  foremost  cities  of  the  United  States  the 
press  and  the  Government  are  at  loggerheads.  The 
Mayor  of  New  York,  not  liking  what  the  newspapers 
say  about  him,  publicly  proposes  to  the  big  advertisers 
that  they  put  pressure  on  the  papers  by  withholding  their 
support.  "If  some  of  you  business  men  would  stop 
advertising  for  the  next  six  months,  many  of  these  news- 
papers would  have  to  go  out  of  business,  and  they  would 
then  stop  this  knocking  and  conform .  to  more  decent 
business  methods." 

The  city  of  Chicago,  acting  through  the  Thompson 
political  machine,  has  brought  a  $10,000,000  libel  suit 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  certain  criticisms  of  the 
financial  administration  of  city  business.  Such  a  suit, 
if  successful,  would,  of  course,  wipe  out  the  newspaper. 

Both  attacks  on  the  press  are  unmistakably  crude. 
In  New  York  it  is  a  Tammany  Mayor  resorting  to  the 
methods  of  the  ward  boss.  In  Chicago  it  is  an  attempt 
to  twist  the  libel  law  away  from  its  true  intent  into  doing 
the  work  of  confiscation.  In  both  places  more  than  a 
city  administration  is  at  issue. 

The  issue  is  whether  authority  shall  be  immune  from 
public  criticism. 

Merely  to  state  this  case  would  seem  sufficient  to 
indicate  how  indefensible  such  immunity  is,  yet  it  is 
surprising  what  quantities  of  short-sighted  advocacy 
the  proposal  to  suppress  free  criticism  can  find. 

It  is  the  same  kind  of  judgment  displayed  by  parents 
who  laugh  at  their  children  when  they  swear,  "because 
it  sounds  so  cute,"  and  then  consider  themselves  the  in- 
jured parties  when  those  same  children  land  in  the 
prisoners'  dock. 

Authority — any  and  every  kind  of  authority — likes 
to  go  unchallenged.  That  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 
It  is  so  much  easier  to  go  ahead  and  do  things  without 
being  obliged  to  answer  questions  of  how,  when,  where 
and  why.  One  of  the  first  instincts  of  authority  is  to 
look  for  some  way  to  stifle  or  evade  such  questions  of 
its  stewardship. 


[80] 


Now,  the  whole  experience  of  democratic  experiments 
in  government  has  been  that,  for  self -protection,  its 
stewards  in  authority  must  he  subject  to  continual 
scrutiny  and  frequent  challenge.  Where  society  is 
simple,  tliis  can  be  done  by  voice  in  the  town  meeting. 
Where  society  is  complex,  as  it  is  in  a  great  metropolis, 
this  has  to  be  done  through  the  press.  The  mere  sug- 
gestion that  it  be  stopped  is  preposterous.  It  is  like 
the  hired  man  objecting  to  being  given  orders  by  the 
farmer  who  employs  him.  Do  the  Chicago  municipal 
authorities  object  to  public  criticism  of  how  the  city's 
money  is  spent?  Well,  whose  money  is  it,  anyhow? 

The  same  duel  between  light  and  darkness  which  sets 
the  press  and  Governments  of  these  two  cities  to  calling 
coffee  and  pistols  is  staged  by  the  impending  Disarma- 
ment Conference.  When  these  American,  European  and 
Asiatic  Governments  meet  to  consider  how  the  money  we 
pay  in  taxes  is  to  be  spent,  much,  if  not  everything,  will 
depend  on  how  strongly  we  insist  that  their  deliberations 
be  in  the  open,  where  they  can  be  seen  and  criticized  by 
the  citizenries  of  their  several  countries.  Some  of  those 
Governments  are  heartily  in  sympathy  with  the  Tammany 
Mayor  and  the  Chicago  political  machine.  They  would  r 
exclude  the  press  if  they  could  or  dared. 

But  beyond  the  immediate  issue  a  larger  one  looms. 
Casual  perusers  of  events  may  sometimes  wonder  why 
zealots  for  the  cause  of  popular  liberties  should  often  raise 
such  a  hullabaloo  over  the  right  of  free  speech.  In  this 
or  that  particular  case  one  finds  himself  rather  sympathiz- 
ing with  the  suggestion  that  this  or  the  other  spouter 
ought  to  be  shut  up.  A  little  more  extended  study  reveals 
the  tack  in  the  tire  of  this  idea.  Stated  quite  simply  it  is 
this:  If  I  let  anybody  else  be  shut  up  today,  tomorrow, 
when  I  may  feel  just  as  strongly  about  something,  I  may 
be  the  one  to  be  shut  up.  Consequently,  no  matter  how 
foolish  or  obnoxious  my  neighbor's  utterances  may  be  to 
me  personally,  it  is  to  my  interest  to  let  him  talk.  (In- 
cidentally, as  a  matter  of  practical  politics,  it  has  also 
always  proved  far  safer  in  the  long  run.) 

The  classic  instances  of  this  are  in  the  period  of  our  own 
antislavery  agitators.  No  small  part  of  their  support 
came  from  people  who,  at  the  start,  like  Wendell  Phillips, 
had  little  interest  in  Abolition  as  such,  but  who  were 


[81] 


intelligent  enough  to  perceive  that  you  cannot  run  a 
country  by  means  of  a  democratic  form  of  government 
unless  you  allow  its  citizens  the  utmost  freedom  to  criticize 
those  to  whom  they  have  deputed  their  authority. 

Uncle  Dudley. 

BOSTON  (Mass.)  Herald,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

Chicago's  Libel  Suit 

The  mayor  of  Chicago  has  brought  suit  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  for  $10,000,000  on  a  libel  charge.  He 
files  the  action  in  the  name  of  the  city  and  founds  it  on 
the  allegation  that  the  newspaper  damaged  the  credit 
of  the  city  and  contributed  to  its  financial  embarrass- 
ment by  printing  certain  statements  at  an  inopportune 
time.  For  several  days  the  arguments  in  the  case  have 
been  going  forward.  The  amount  of  damages  named  is 
said  to  be  enough  to  absorb  the  entire  plant  of  the  paper. 

This  suit  of  Mayor  Thompson's  is  interesting  to  the 
whole  country  because  of  the  issues  involved.  The 
defense  claims  that  it  is  against  public  policy  to  permit 
a  city  to  sue  a  newspaper  for  libel  and  demand  con- 
fiscat9ry  damages.  Also,  as  might  be  expected,  that  the 
statements  to  which  exception  is  made  were  true,  that 
the  city  was  "broke"  when  the  Tribune  so  asserted, 
that  a  large  part  of  the  articles  upon  which  the  suit  is 
based  were  merely  reports  of  city  council  meetings  and 
other  official  and  privileged  matter,  and  that  the  printed 
statements  were  reaffirmations  of  charges  made  openly 
and  repeatedly  by  candidates  for  public  office.  The 
mayor  in  the  name  of  the  city  claims  that  the  Tribune 
printed  statements  concerning  the  condition  of  the  city 
treasury  which  hampered  the  city  in  its  efforts  to  sell 
municipal  bonds  in  the  open  market.  The  paper  replies 
that  the  law  is  supposed  to  safeguard  bond  issues  in 
such  degree  that  their  value  will  not  be  so  affected,  and 
that  it  is  not  good  public  policy  to  prohibit  the  free 
discussion  of  the  finances  of  any  institution  that  has 
bonds  or  securities  of  any  kind  to  sell. 

And  of  course  the  defense  builds  its  case  upon  the 
guarantee  of  the  freedom  of  the  press  upon  which  all 
newspapers  must  depend  for  their  security  and  the 


[82] 


opportunity  to  render  that  public  service  for  which  a 
newspaper  should  stand.  Indeed,  the  Tribune's  counsel 
the  other  day  reviewed  the  whole  story  of  the  struggle 
for  free  speech  from  the  period  of  the  Roman  Emperors 
down  to  the  present  time.  The  constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  the  constitutions  of  every  state  in 
the  union  sustain  the  principle  of  freedom  of  speech  and 
press. 

Clearly  this  is  a  rare  case.  It  is  said  to  be  without 
precedent  in  this  country.  Are  newspapers  to  be  pro- 
hibited from  criticism  of  official  incompetency?  Must 
newspapers  refrain  from  publication  of  what  they  believe 
to  be  the  truth  as  to  the  finances  of  their  state  or  their 
city? 

BOSTON  (Mass.)  Transcript,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Newspapers  and  the  Public 

The  decision  of  the  Cook  County  Circuit  Court  in  the 
libel  case  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  by  Mayor 
Thompson  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago  does  much 
more  than  justify  the  particular  editorials  and  news 
articles  in  which  that  paper  had  criticized  and  denounced 
the  administration  of  Thompson.  The  finding  of  the 
court  is  squarely  for  the  Tribune;  but  besides  settling 
the  immediate  question  whether  or  not  the  Tribune  had 
defamed  the  mayor  and  his  administration,  the  decision 
lays  down  some  general  principles  that  must  serve  as 
precedents  in  the  consideration  of  the  matter  of  public 
criticism  by  newspapers.  The  decision  raises  the  news- 
paper, in  this  public  relation,  quite  above  that  of  the 
private  defamer  who  perhaps,  for  reasons  of  his  own 
interest  or  from  malignant  motives,  circulates  a  slander 
against  his  neighbor.  The  bent  of  the  decision  may  be 
gathered  from  the  following  extract: 

The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world,  and, 
to  a  great  extent,  humanity  in  contact  with  all  its  parts. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power 
to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which 
unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public 
benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue 
undismayed  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of 
the  unscrupulous  demagogue. 

[83] 


Naturally  this  ruling  does  not  affect  the  question  of 
the  newspaper's  responsibility  for  an  abuse  of  the  liberty 
of  writing  and  publishing  on  all  subjects.  It  does  not 
supply  any  defense  whatever  for  scandal  or  defamation. 
But  it  does  take  account  of  the  equal  responsibility  of  the 
newspaper  to  the  general  public  to  tell  the  truth  to  the 
best  of  its  ability  where  the  public  is  deeply  interested. 
If  the  press  is  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world,  is  it  justified 
in  closing  both  eyes  and  ears  to  a  public  evil  ?  Manifestly 
the  Illinois  Circuit  Court  thinks  it  is  not. 

Men  in  office  are  fairly  subject  to  newspaper  criticism. 
If  they  were  not,  public  officials,  in  this  day  of  the  world, 
would  have  not  only  the  newspapers  but  the  general  pub- 
lic under  a  complete  system  of  intimidation. 

BOSTON  (Mass.)  Herald,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Critics  of  Chicago 

The  first  attempt  on  record  of  a  city  government  to 
avenge  itself  upon  a  newspaper  critic  by  a  libel  suit  has 
failed  completely,  through  the  sensible  and  well-con- 
sidered ruling  of  Judge  Fisher  in  the  case  brought  by  the 
city  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  the 
Daily  News,  for  alleged  injury  to  the  city's  credit  and 
financial  standing,  to  the  amount  of  ten  million  dollars, 
through  their  criticisms  of  city  officials  and  policies. 

The  counsel  for  the  city  cited  as  a  precedent  for  the 
case  a  suit  brought  by  the  city  of  Manchester,  England, 
thirty  years  ago,  on  similar  grounds;  but  the  judge 
brushed  this  case  aside,  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  the 
decision  of  a  foreign  tribunal  furnished  no  precedent  in 
such  a  case,  and  he  quoted  the  provision  of  the  Illinois 
Constitution  of  1870  that  "every  person  may  freely 
speak,  write  and  publish  on  all  subjects,  being  responsible 
for  the  abuse  of  that  liberty,"  and  affirmed  that  "the 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  was,  at  the  very  in- 
ception of  our  government,  regarded  as  indispensable  to 
a  free  state."  Legitimate  restraints  upon  this  freedom 
have  been  narrowed  down  to  four  heads — blasphemy, 
immorality,  sedition  and  defamation.  The  judge  dis- 
missed the  first  two  as  not  involved  and  held  that  if  the 
Tribune's  articles  alleging  that  the  city  was  "broke" 


[84] 


were  neither  seditious  nor  libelous,  they  were  unrestrained. 
If  the  present  suit  were  maintained  "public  officials 
would  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective  in- 
struments with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  silence 
their  enemies.  It  would  be  a  weapon  to  be  used  over 
the  head  of  everyone  who  dared  print  or  speak  unfav- 
orably of  the  men  in  power." 

This  suit  for  ten  million  dollar  damages  by  the  Chicago 
city  government  was  evidently  meant  to  silence  criticism 
in  the  press  or  on  the  platform.  With  such  a  possible 
penalty  impending — large  enough  to  wreck  any  news- 
paper property — anything  like  fair  and  frank  criticism  of 
a  municipal  administration  would  be  impossible.  The 
principles  involved  are  nation-wide.  They  apply  as 
plainly  to  a  Fitzgerald  or  Curley  government  in  Boston 
as  to  a  Thompson  government  in  Chicago.  It  is  for  the 
interest  of  all  concerned  that  there  should  be  fairness 
and  reasonable  restraint  in  all  criticism  of  public  officials, 
but  that  is  a  different  thing  from  treating  the  city  itself, 
by  a  legal  fiction,  as  a  private  person,  for  whom  the  laws 
of  libel  might  be  invoked,  with  damage  claims  of  ten 
million  dollars. 


BOSTON  (Mass.)  Globe,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

The  city  of  Chicago's  $10,000,000  suit  against  the 
Tribune  has  been  thrown  out  of  court,  and  the  newspapers 
of  the  Windy  city  may  now  continue  to  express  their 
doubts  about  the  kind  of  government  that  Mr.  Thompson 
passes  around. 

SPRINGFIELD  (Mass.)  Republican,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

In  throwing  out  the  city  of  Chicago's  $10,000,000  libel 
suit  against  "The  Chicago  Tribune"  the  judge  has  ended 
one  of  the  greatest  farces  that  ever  got  into  a  court  of  law. 
The  notion  that  in  criticizing  the  finances  of  a  city  a 
newspaper  exposed  itself  to  a  suit  for  damages  measured 
by  the  alleged  injury  to  the  city's  credit  was  worthy  of 
the  present  Thompson  administration. 


[85] 


KINGSTON  (Mass.)  Leader,  Oct.  29,  1921. 

The  Newspaper 

In  upholding  the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  to 
the  Thompson  suit  against  that  paper  for  $10,000,000 
Judge  Fisher  paid  this  tribute  to  the  newspaper  as  a 
disseminator  of  public  information  and  defender  of  the 
people : 

It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials  and 
of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power  to 
advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  unifies 
public  sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  benefactors 
would  go|  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undis- 
mayed and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the 
unscrupulous  demagogue. 

The  newspaper  is  the  greatest  factor  for  good  a  com- 
munity can  have;  the  greatest  aid  a  merchant  can  have 
and  the  most  formidable  foe  a  dishonest  man  or  business 
can  have. 

BALTIMORE  (Md.)  Evening  Sun,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  Victory  for  Free  Speech 

The  decision  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher,  of  Chicago,  sus- 
taining the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  to  the 
$10,000,000  libel  suit  brought  by  the  city  of  Chicago,  is  a 
distinct  victory  for  the  cause  of  a  free  press  in  America. 

The  Tribune  and  the  Daily  News  are  being  sued  on 
the  ground  that  they  printed  false  statements  regarding 
the  financial  affairs  of  the  municipality,  thereby  injuring 
the  city's  credit.  In  pressing  its  claim  the  city  admin- 
istration was  relying  on  certain  portions  of  the  English 
common  law  restricting  the  liberty  of  the  press.  Sus- 
taining the  demurrer,  the  judge  denied  that  this  country 
had  inherited  these  restrictions.  On  the  contrary,  he 
held  that  the  founders  of  the  republic  were  distinctly 
opposed  to  any  such  restraints  on  free  speech. 

The  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  (he  said)  was  at 
the  very  inception  of  our  Government  regarded  as  indispen- 
sable to  a  free  state.  Those  who  attempted  to  check  the 
passion  for  it  were  branded  by  history  as  barbarians  and 
tyrants. 


[86] 


We  have  previously  alluded  to  the  possibilities  that 
illicit  grow  out  of  a  decision  in  this  suit  favorable  to 
the  municipal  government  of  Chicago.  We  venture 
to  say  that  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  a  city  administra- 
tion would  hardly  have  dared  resort  to  such  a  suit  to 
silence  its  newspaper  critics.  In  recent  years,  however, 
we  have  been  traveling  a  strange  path  in  the  direction 
of  suppression.  It  was  about  time  that  some  court  should 
stand  up  and  call  a  halt.  If  a  newspaper  del  berately 
misrepresents  the  facts  it  is  the  first  to  feel  the  effects 
of  an  abused  public  confidence,  and  the  lesson  is  always 
a  costly  one.  But  far  costlier  to  the  public  would  be  a 
system  under  which  public  officers  could  suppress  criti- 
cism of  their  acts  by  legal  process. 

BALTIMORE  (Md.)  Sun,  Oct.   17,   1921. 

Judge  Fisher's  decision  that  the  city  of  Chicago  has 
no  cause  for  action  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  is  a 
preliminary  victory  for  the  newspaper  in  its  defense 
against  the  city's  $10,000,000  libel  suit.  His  statement 
that  incalculable  harm  would  result  to  the  community 
from  "an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  the  fear  of  pub- 
licity" is  a  deserved  tribute  to  the  part  which  newspapers 
play  in  attracting  public  attention  to  the  acts  of  those 
who  occupy  offices  of  public  trust,  even  though  it  does 
seem  to  attribute  to  public  officials  a  venal  character 
which  most  of  them  do  not  possess.  But  more  interest- 
ing is  his  belief  that  the  American  people  will  not  long 
support  a  newspaper  which  habitually  misrepresents  the 
truth,  for  this  is  a  contention  that  critics  of  the  press 
do  not  always  recognize  as  sound.  That  it  is  sound  is 
the  theory  of  modern  journalism,  and  it  finds  support 
in  the  general  proposition  that  the  press  should  not  be 
subjected  to  official  censorship.  Chicago's  denial  of 
this  proposition  is,  according  to  Judge  Fisher,  "out  of 
harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  object"  of  American 
institutions. 


[87] 


BALTIMORE  (Md.)  American,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

The  Freedom  of  the  Press  Vindicated 

The  "never-ending  audacity  of  elected  persons"  must 
surely  have  reached  its  climax  in  the  recent  suit  brought 
by  the  city  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune. 
The  legal  advisers  of  the  City  Council  contended  that 
the  Tribune  and  the  Chicago  Daily  News  by  printing 
adverse  criticisms  of  the  municipal  administration  had 
"libeled"  the  city  and  thereby  lowered  its  credit  in  the 
money  market.  To  cover  the  alleged  financial  loss 
damages  were  asked  in  the  sum  of  $10,000,000.  This  is 
merely  an  unusually  insolent  way  of  saying  that  a, 
municipal  administration,  by  whatever  means  it  may 
have  been  returned  to  power  and  however  inimical  to 
public  interests  its  corporate  acts  may  be,  is  immune 
from  unfavorable  criticism.  In  the  same  category  of 
thought  belong  those  administrators  who,  when  an 
outside  survey  of  any  department  or  phase  of  the  govern- 
ment of  which  they  are  the  servants  makes  a  critical 
report,  try  as  long  as  possible  to  keep  the  report  from 
circulation  lest  its  publication  should  give  their  city  or 
state  "a  black  eye." 

Fortunately,  there  is  a  considerable  number  (not  yet 
so  large  as  it  should  be)  of  people  who  are  weary  of 
whitewashing  reports,  shallow  boosters  and  weak-kneed 
administrators,  and  who  want  to  know  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth  about  the  admin- 
istrations which  are  in  charge  of  their  public  business. 
Still  more  fortunately,  as  in  the  case  of  the  suit  mentioned, 
there  are  clear-headed  judges  who  conceive  that  a  very 
important  part  of  the  duties  of  their  office  is  to  defend 
popular  rights  and  liberties.  Judge  Fisher  in  pronounc- 
ing in  favor  of  the  Tribune  declared  that  if  the  action  of 
the  City  Council  were  sustained,  then 

—public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effec- 
tive instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to 
silence  their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the 
head  of  every  one  who  dares  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of 
the  men  in  power. 

No  other  judgment  could,  under  the  circumstances, 
have  been  handed  down  and  the  two  Chicago  papers 
which  have  consistently,  in  the  name  of  good  citizenship, 


[88] 


carried  on  a  campaign  of  criticism  against  the  existing 
municipal  administration  of  their  city  have  earned  the 
thanks  of  the  whole  country  and  have  been  handsomely 
vindicated  by  the  judge  who  decided  in  their  favor. 

BANGOR  (Maine)  Commercial,  Sept.  17,  1921. 

Something  New  in  Libel  Suits 

There  is  something  new  in  libel  suits  in  that  which 
has  been  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune,  in  that 
the  suit  is  brought  by  the  city  of  Chicago  as  a  corporation. 
The  ad  damnum  is  set  at  $10,000,000  and  it  is  alleged 
that  libelous  statements  made  by  the  Tribune  regarding 
the  financial  condition  of  the  city  resulted  in  impairing 
the  credit  of  the  city  and  increased  the  difficulty  of  trans- 
acting the  business  of  the  city. 

We  doubt  if  the  Tribune  is  greatly  worried.  The  suit 
is  clearly  the  outcome  of  the  political  conditions  in 
Chicago  and  the  Thompson  administration  is  apparently 
attempting  to  get  back  at  the  Tribune  for  criticisms 
made.  The  freedom  of  the  press  would  certainly  be 
threatened  if  a  newspaper  should  be  penalized  for  pub- 
lished statements  regarding  the  financial  conditions  of  a 
city.  Such  suits  could  as  well  be  brought  by  a  state  or 
national  administration. 

BANGOR  (Maine)  Commercial,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

That  the  $10,000,000  suit  brought  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  in  the  name  of  the  City  of  Chicago  has  been 
thrown  out  of  court  is  not  surprising,  for  few  believed 
that  a  newspaper  is  going  beyond  its  province  in  criti- 
cizing the  financial  condition  of  a  city.  Should  the 
Tribune  have  been  penalized  for  its  expression  of  opinion 
and  its  publication  of  the  facts  on  the  ground  that  the 
credit  of  the  city  was  injured  thereby,  a  heavy  blow 
would  certainly  have  been  struck  at  the  freedom  of  the 
press  and  at  representative  government  as  well. 

WATERBURY  (Conn.)  Democrat,  Oct.  1,  1921. 

Mayor  Thompson  bitterly  resents  the  criticism  his 
administration  invites,  which  explains  the  city  govern- 
ment's ten-million-dollar  libel  suit  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune. 


[89] 


HARTFORD  (Conn.)  Courant,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

The  absurd  suit  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  for  $10,000,000  damages  has  been 
thrown  out  of  court.  The  judge  rules  properly  that  it 
does  not  belong  there.  It  was  a  case  of  politics  trying 
to  use  the  law  against  a  free  press  and  the  right  of  the 
people  to  know  what  their  own  government  was  doing. 

HARTFORD  (Conn.)  Times,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Chicago  Tribune's  Victory 

Had  Mayor  Thompson  and  his  crowd  been  successful 
in  their  suit  for  $10,000,000  for  libel  brought  in  the  name 
of  the  city  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  there  would 
have  been  an  end  to  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press 
in  the  Windy  city.  The  court  throws  the  suit  out  and 
orders  a  decision  for  the  defendant,  an  outcome  of  the 
litigation  which  lawyers  and  newspapers  expected. 

If  men  holding  office  could  make  it  impossible  for  the 
press  to  criticize  their  official  acts  this  country  would 
not  long  remain  free.  It  is  the  function  and  duty  of 
the  press  to  keep  the  public  informed  about  its  affairs. 
The  Tribune  declared  that  the  policy  of  the  adminis- 
tration which  has  Chicago  in  its  grip  was  driving  the  city 
into  bankruptcy.  The  city  sued,  claiming  that  the 
statements  in  the  paper  affected  its  credit  and  hurt  the 
city's  good  name.  But  the  Tribune  was  doing  its  duty 
by  the  people  of  Chicago,  and  apparently  it  never  en- 
tertained any  fears  as  to  the  outcome  of  the  case. 

Comparatively  few  people  ever  stop  to  think  of  what 
they  owe  the  newspapers.  Every  day,  for  expenditure 
of  but  a  few  cents,  they  can  buy  papers  that  give  them 
accounts  of  the  most  important  happenings  throughout 
the  world.  If  matters  of  international  concern  are 
settled  in  Paris  or  London,  the  news  is  printed  in  the 
same  issue  with  accounts  of  the  social  activities  of  the 
reader's  neighbors,  the  sale  of  real  estate  or  whatever 
may  be  the  news.  If  the  city  council,  the  legislature, 
congress  or  the  executives  of  the  city,  state  or  nation 
have  taken  action  or  neglected  to  take  action  on  some 
important  matter,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  press  to  comment 


[90] 


upon  it,  fairly  and  honestly,  for  the  protection  of  the 
people.  As  the  judge  in  Chicago  said,  when  dismissing 
the  suit  against  the  Tribune,  but  for  the  press  "the  acts 
of  public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors 
would  continue  undismayed  and  public  office  would  be 
the  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupulous  demagogue."  The 
victory  of  the  Tribune  over  the  political  machine  that 
controls  Chicago  is  really  a  victory  for  the  Chicago 
public. 

NEW  HAVEN  (Conn.)  Register,  Oct.  28,  1921. 

The  Free  Press  Upheld 

For  more  than  the  newspaper  craft  is  the  interest  in 
the  decision  of  the  Chicago  district  court  freeing  The 
Chicago  Tribune  from  the  ten-million-dollar  suit  brought 
against  it  by  the  mayor  and  other  officials  of  that  city 
for  alleged  libel  on  the  city's  good  name.  As  the  reasons 
for  the  sustaining  of  the  demurrer  and  the  practical  dis- 
missal of  the  suit  are  stated,  it  is  a  decision  upholding 
an  institution  dear  to  all  Americans,  the  free  press. 

The  complaint  against  the  Tribune,  it  may  be  re- 
membered, was  that  in  effect  it  charged  that  the  Thomp- 
son administration  had  bankrupted  the  city.  The  suit, 
it  was  clear,  was  not  so  much  to  recover  $10,000,000 
and  restore  the  city  to  solvency  as  to  punish  the  too  frank 
newspaper  and  warn  it  and  others  in  the  future  against 
such  freedom  of  speech.  Judge  Fisher,  in  making  his 
decision,  seems  to-  have  considered  less  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  charge  of  having  bankrupted  the  city 
was  sustained,  than  the  question  whether  it  was  for  the 
public  good  to  bludgeon  a  newspaper  into  silence.  Un- 
mistakably he  decided  that  it  was  not.  This  was  his 
view  on  that  point: 

"Stripped  of  all  the  elaborate  argument,  in  the  con- 
fusion of  which  the  question  for  decision  might  look 
difficult,  the  fact  remains  that,  if  this  action  is  main- 
tainable, then  public  officials  have  in  their  power  one 
of  the  most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate 
the  press  and  to  silence  their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon 
to  be  held  over  the  head  of  everyone  who  dares  print 
or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 


[91] 


It  is  presumable,  and  the  judge  did  presume,  that  the 
newspaper  acted  without  malice.  Against  an  individual 
there  might  be  malice,  but  a  newspaper  thinks  too  much 
of  that  good  will  which  is  its  life  to  malign  its  community. 
Against  that  the  public  seems  very  well  protected.  It 
remains  that  something  be  done  to  make  sure  that  the 
public  is  also  protected  against  the  suppression  or  the 
intimidation  of  any  newspaper  that  dares  to  denounce 
officials  who  it  honestly  believes  to  be  acting  in  sub- 
version of  the  public  interest.  That  something  Judge 
Fisher's  decision  seems  in  a  way  to  accomplish. 

PROVIDENCE  (R.  I.)  Tribune,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Press  Freedom  Upheld 

The  city  of  Chicago  has  lost  its  suit  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  charging  that  paper  with  "libeling"  the  city  in 
printing  criticisms  of  the  corporate  acts  of  the  munici- 
pality. Damages  in  the  sum  of  ten  million  dollars  were 
asked. 

It  was,  of  course,  a  ridiculous  suit,  brought  really  not 
by  the  city  but  by  the  notorious  Mayor  Thompson,  who, 
however,  in  his  political  audacity  assumes  to  be  the  city. 
It  was  he  that  the  Tribune,  as  well  as  other  Chicago  news- 
papers, criticized,  and  he  in  his  public  capacity  as  the 
head  of  a  municipal  administration  which  was  bringing 
disrepute  and  peril  upon  Chicago. 

In  throwing  the  suit  out  of  court  the  judge  reaffirmed 
some  fundamental  and  wholesome  principles.  The  press 
is  far  from  being  unbridled.  Laws  exist  to  punish  it  for 
sedition,  indecency  or  personal  defamation.  But  public 
policy  and  judicial  decisions  have  long  permitted  and 
even  encouraged  the  freest  criticism  of  men  in  office. 
The  judge  in  this  case  pointed  out  that  if  the  city's  action 
was  held  maintainable  "then  public  officials  have  in 
their  power  one  of  the  most  effective  instruments  with 
which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to  silence  their  enemies. 
It  is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of  everyone  who 
dares  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power." 

Thus  again  an  impudent  attempt  to  limit  the  freedom 
and  usefulness  of  the  press  has  had  the  stamp  of  deserved 
judicial  disapproval  placed  upon  it;  and  again  a  danger- 


[92] 


cms  attempt  by  one  of  the  most  arrogant  of  political  ma- 
chines to  maintain  itself  in  power  and  to  outlaw,  crush 
and  silence  all  possible  effective  criticism  of  itself  and  its 
acts  is  defeated. 

The  ruling  made  is  the  expected  ruling.  Upholding 
the  contention  of  the  city  would  have  meant  that,  no 
matter  how  corrupt  or  sinister  any  official  might  be,  he 
would  be  able  to  use  the  powers  of  the  municipality  in 
hiding  his  infirmities  and  crookedness.  With  the  tax- 
payers' money  he  could  prosecute  any  taxpayer  who 
publicly  criticized  his  crookedness. 

To  accept  such  doctrines  would  be  to  prepare  the  way 
for  a  period  of  municipal  corruption  and  debauchery 
that  would  smell  to  heaven.  Extended  to  State  and 
Federal  Government,  it  would  mean  the  end  of  popular 
rule  and  a  quick  decline  to  self -perpetuating  autocracies 
built  on  a  lust  for  undisturbed  and  unending  power. 


[93] 


CASPER  (Wyo.)  Tribune,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

Destroying  the  Cornerstone 

William  Hale  Thompson,  mayor  of  Chicago,  has  had  a 
lesson  which  he  may  sit  down  and  think  over,  with  much 
profit.  It  ought  to  take  a  little  of  the  wire  edge  off 
William's  temper  and  make  a  better  mayor  and  citizen 
of  him  if  such  is  within  the  possibilities. 

At  least  he  will  not  again  seek  to  remove  the  corner- 
stone of  all  modern  government  when  he  gets  peeved. 

His  suit  for  ten  million  dollars  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  on  behalf  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  as  alleged 
damages,  claimed  against  the  newspaper  for  impairing 
the  city's  credit,  by  reason  of  publications  reflecting 
upon  the  city's  financial  condition  and  its  management 
under  the  mayor's  direction,  was  dismissed. 

The  case  rested  upon  the  right  of  free  speech  and  the 
court's  ruling  added  strength  to  the  principle  involved. 
The  city's  right  to  sue  in  such  circumstance  as  existed 
was  denied,  while  the  plaintiffs  as  public  officials  were 
reminded  that  they  had  all  the  remedy  and  protection 
required  by  the  laws  of  libel. 

The  court  suggested  that  the  power  of  a  newspaper 
to  injure  a  community  or  a  public  official  is  limited  by 
the  degree  of  public  favor  it  enjoys.  If  a  newspaper 
persistently  misrepresents  the  facts,  shows  animus,  un- 
fairness or  spite,  it  destroys  public  confidence  in  itself 
and  its  influence  over  public  opinion  is  small.  That  is 
all  the  protection  necessary  to  a  public  official  conscious 
of  performing  his  duty.  It  would  be  a  most  dangerous 
and  destructive  power  to  place  in  the  hands  of  public 
officials — the  power  to  silence  a  newspaper  that  exposed 
or  criticized  public  acts. 

The  mayor  of  Chicago  is  not  now  and  never  will  be 
big  enough  to  abolish  free  speech  or  suppress  the  honest 
opinion  of  newspapers. 

SEATTLE  (Wash.)  Times,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Freedom  of  the  Press 

A  victory  for  good  government  the  country  over  was 
won  by  The  Chicago  Tribune  recently  when  a  court  in 
that  city  dismissed  a  suit  for  $10,000,000,  brought 

[94] 


against  the  newspaper  for  articles  dealing  with  the 
financial  standing  of  the  municipality. 

The  claim  was  made  that  these  articles  "injured  the 
city's  credit."  In  I  ruth  and  in  fact,  the  action  was 
designed  to  muzzle  The  Tribune  because  it  had  been 
unsparing  in  some  of  its  criticism  of  political  and  govern- 
mental conditions  in  the  Middle  Western  metropolis. 

The  court  properly  held  that  such  discussion  was 
within  the  rightful  purview  of  the  press  and  that  news- 
paper comment  dealing  with  such  matters  could  not  be 
curtailed  without  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  of 
these  publications. 

If  there  is  one  vital  service  the  press  renders  the  people 
of  any  community,  it  is  that  of  exposing  conditions  in 
government  which  otherwise  would  remain  secret.  To 
abridge  that  service  would  be  to  render  impossible  ex- 
posures of  inefficiency  and  corruption  and  would  make 
it  practically  impossible  for  the  people  to  force  "an 
account  of  stewardship"  from  their  public  servants. 

Sioux  FALLS  (S.  D.)  Argus,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

The  Real  Defendant 

Every  newspaper  in  the  country  is  interested  in  the 
outcome  of  the  $10,000,000  suit  brought  by  the  Thomp- 
son machine,  in  the  name  of  Chicago,  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune.  The  question  involved  in  the  suit  is  a  funda- 
mental one.  If  a  city  can  maintain  a  civil  action  in  libel 
against  a  newspaper  so  can  a  state  and  so  can  the  nation. 
The  result  would  of  course  be  to  ruin  the  newspapers 
which  could  not  be  frightened  into  submission  and  the 
day  of  a  free  press  and  free  speech  in  this  country  would 
be  at  an  end.  We  can  not  think  that  the  courts  will  give 
standing  to  such  a  suit.  Its  success  would  give  to  po- 
litical machines  the  most  dangerous  weapon  ever  put 
in  their  hands  and  they  could  plunder  at  will  when  the 
press  was  gagged.  In  this  respect  the  real  defendant  in 
this  action  is  not  The  Chicago  Tribune  but  the  whole 
American  people. 


[95] 


Sioux  FALLS  (S.  D.)  Argus-Leader,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  Daniel  Come  to  Judgment 

Undoubtedly  good  law  and  certainly  good  sense  was 
the  ruling  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher  of  Chicago,  who  threw 
out,  on  demurrer,  the  suit  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune  and  the  Chicago  News  for  libel,  in 
an  action  in  which  "$10,000,000"  was  claimed  in  the  way 
of  damages. 

Judge  Fisher  held  that  an  action  of  this  kind  could  have 
no  standing  in  an  American  court,  that  it  was  not  in  har- 
mony with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institu- 
tions, and  that  the  precedent  established  by  a  city  in 
England  could  not  be  the  guide  for  courts  in  America. 

Had  the  court  given  standing  to  such  a  suit,  machine 
politicians  would  have  been  given  a  weapon  which  they 
would  not  have  been  slow  to  use.  If  a  newpaper  can  not 
safely  criticize  a  city,  as  a  corporation,  it  would  be  equally 
unsafe  to  criticize  a  state  or  national  administration.  A 
strong  federal  machine  entrenched  at  Washington  could 
do  pretty  much  as  it  pleased  so  far  as  the  newspapers  are 
concerned,  for  they  would  not  dare  to  go  after  things  with 
bare  knuckles  as  they  do  now.  The  same  thing  would 
be  true  in  state  and  municipal  affairs.  Protected  from 
the  pitiless  publicity  which  is  a  public  safeguard,  machines 
like  that  of  Mayor  Thompson  in  Chicago,  or  of  Tammany 
in  New  York,  could  misrule,  rob  and  plunder  at  will,  for 
the  people  would  not  know  the  facts  and  the  newspapers 
would  not  dare  to  make  any  charge  unless  they  were  in  a 
position  to  bring  absolute  proof  in  court. 

At  the  time  the  Chicago  action  was  brought,  the  Argus- 
Leader  said  that  the  suit  was  really  one  against  the  entire 
press  of  the  country  and  against  the  American  people. 
The  decision  of  the  Chicago  judge  was  to  be  expected. 
When  a  newspaper  gets  unfair  or  grows  untruthful,  the 
public  will  in  the  end  appraise  it  for  what  it  is  worth; 
but  the  time  has  not  yet  come  when  an  "administra- 
tion," be  it  municipal,  state  or  national,  can  silence  the 
American  press  through  actions  for  libel.  If  all  the  people 
could  be  taxed  to  pay  the  costs  of  such  actions,  there 
would  be  no  limit  to  them  until  the  press  of  the  country 
had  grown  servile  and  timid. 


[96] 


FREDERICK  (Okla.)  Leader,  Sept.  23,  1921. 

A  Blow  at  Freedom 

It  is  a  most  unusual  spectacle,  that  of  a  city  adminis- 
tration suing  a  newspaper  for  damages — such  as  is  the 
case  with  the  city  government  of  Chicago  and  The 
Chicago  Tribune. 

If  such  a  case  could  be  made  to  stand  up  in  the  courts, 
then  the  freedom  of  the  press  would  be  a  farce,  as  criti- 
cism of  public  officials  is  one  of  the  prerogatives  specific- 
ally granted  to  newspapers  and  citizens  generally. 

If  a  set  of  officials  can  proceed  to  spend  the  money  of 
the  people  as  they  please  and  to  the  press  is  denied  the 
right  to  criticize  their  acts,  then  a  great  source  of  pro- 
tection from  official  dishonesty  has  been  removed  from 
the  people. 

It  is  true  that  the  liberty  of  the  press  is  often  abused, 
but  not  as  often  as  is  the  trust  imposed  in  public  officials 
hot  rayed. 

FREDERICK  (Okla.)  Leader,  Sept.  28,  1921. 

The  Truth,  Fitly  Spoken 

The  suit  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  for  libel  has  brought  out  the  fact  that  the  libel 
law  of  Illinois  makes  this  provision: 

"Every  person  may  freely  speak,  write  and  publish 
on  all  subjects,  being  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  that 
liberty,  and  in  all  trials  for  libel,  both  civil  and  criminal, 
the  truth,  when  published  with  good  motives  and  for 
justifiable  ends,  shall  be  sufficient  defense." 

This  is  such  a  provision  as  the  Oklahoma  Press  asso- 
ciation has  contended  for  in  the  Oklahoma  laws,  on  sev- 
eral occasions,  but  always  unsuccessfully. 

The  national  constitution  provides  that  "congress  shall 
make  no  law  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the 
press,"  and  most  state  constitutions  make  the  same  pro- 
vision— but  Oklahoma  is  one  of  the  states  where  lawmak- 
ers have  presumed  to  restrict  this  American  principle, 
and  to  define  what  is  "privileged"  matter,  and  what  is 
forbidden  matter,  against  which  the  truth  shall  be  no 
defense. 


[97] 


To  read  the  Oklahoma  libel  law,  one  would  be  justified 
in  believing  that  it  was  constructed  by  adventurers  from 
other  states  who  were  afraid  of  ghosts  of  their  past  lives. 

No  one  should  be  permitted  to  commit  libel  or  slander. 
No  one  should  be  allowed  to  use  the  power  of  the  press 
to  wreak  malice  or  spite.  But  the  truth,  "published  with 
good  motives  and  for  justifiable  ends,"  should  always  be 
a  "sufficient  defense,"  and  if  Oklahoma  publishers  were 
as  alert  to  the  interests  of  their  profession  as  they  are  to 
the  public  interest  in  other  things  they  would  see  that 
this  was  the  law. 

Constructive  criticism,  for  the  public  welfare,  both  of 
men  and  of  measures,  should  be  an  implied  duty  of  the 
public  press,  to  be  encouraged  rather  than  throttled. 

MCALESTER  (Okla.)  News-Capital,  Nov.  1,  1921. 

Newspaper  Criticism 

When  The  Chicago  Tribune  was  vindicated  in  court  in 
its  inalienable  right  to  criticize  public  officials,  newspapers 
all  over  the  country  rejoiced  that  another  attempt  to 
muzzle  the  press  had  failed.  And  it's  a  mighty  good 
thing  for  all  concerned  that  the  attempt  did  fail. 

The  press  of  the  country  has  survived  because  it  has 
rendered  service  to  the  public,  and  one  feature  of  that 
service  is  its  courageous  attacks  at  all  times  on  that 
which  is  corrupt  and  disastrous.  Newspapers  make  mis- 
takes sometimes,  but  in  the  great  majority  of  instances 
they  will  be  found  on  the  side  of  right  and  progress. 

The  press  has  no  leave  to  print  falsehoods,  and  every 
state  has  stern  libel  laws  to  protect  those  who  might  be 
damaged  by  false  statements.  The  press,  however,  does 
have  leave  to  show  up  men  intrusted  with  public  affairs 
who  are  not  worthy  of  that  trust. 

The  News-Capital  for  its  part  has  never  undertaken 
to  dig  into  men's  private  lives  nor  has  it  made  of  its  issues 
personal  ones.  We  think  such  procedure  not  worthy 
of  a  newspaper.  Criticism  of  men's  public  acts  is  at  all 
times  a  prerogative  of  newspapers  and  one  that  should 
be  carefully  handled  but  sincerely  followed. 


[98] 


MINOT  (N.  D.)  Republican,  Saturday,  Oct.   1, 

Popular  Liberty  at  Stake 

The  $10,000,000  damage  suit  begun  by  the  City  of 
Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  is  a  test  case  of 
vast  importance  to  the  country  and  is  being  watched 
by  the  people  with  widespread  and  increasing  interest. 
Once  they  realize  what  is  involved  in  this  action  the 
people  will  take  a  still  greater  and  more  active  interest 
in  the  matter.  The  real  issue  is  the  freedom  of  speech 
and  the  press  guaranteed  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  by  the  federal  Constitution.  It  is  one  of  the 
foundation  principles  upon  which  this  government  was 
founded  and  may  well  be  called  the  cornerstone  of  pop- 
ular liberty.  The  first  act  of  tyrants  of  all  kinds  is 
usually  to  suppress  free  speech  and  muzzle  the  press. 
The  greatest  force  in  exposing  and  destroying  tyranny 
and  evil  doing  is  pitiless  publicity.  There  may  be  mis- 
takes in  the  publicity,  but  its  enormous  general  value 
should  cause  the  overlooking  of  the  errors  which  are 
inherent  in  any  human  institution. 

If  the  Chicago  case  should  establish  a  precedent  that 
a  city  or  any  other  governmental  body  can  successfully 
sue  and  thru  law  inflict  so-called  punishment  upon 
the  newspapers,  America  will  have  taken  the  greatest 
possible  step  backward  toward  despotism  and  oppression 
of  the  people.  It  will  be  the  cue  for  every  rotten  political 
alignment  and  corrupt  clique  of  politicians  to  use  the 
law  to  club  and  embarrass  the  opposing  press,  to  silence 
it  and  to  prevent  it  from  telling  the  truth  and  protecting 
the  people  against  the  wrongdoers  of  every  sort — the 
grafters,  the  oppressors,  the  misusers  of  power,  the  trick- 
sters, the  jobbers,  the  wasters,  the  agents  of  misgovern- 
ment  of  all  kinds.  A  mere  glimpse  at  the  possibility 
should  be  enough  to  make  one  realize  the  danger  and 
inspire  him  to  immediate  action  to  prevent  it. 

The  Tribune  said  that  the  City  of  Chicago  was  bank- 
rupt, that  it  could  not  pay  its  bills.  Perhaps  this  state- 
ment was  true  at  the  time,  perhaps  it  was  not  strictly 
a  fact.  It  emphasized  a  bad  financial  condition,  how- 
ever. Many  North  Dakota  newspapers  as  well  as  in- 
dividuals have  declared  that  North  Dakota  is  bankrupt. 
Such  a  statement  is  far  more  true  than  if  applied  to  Chi- 

[99] 


cago.  This  state  is  in  a  condition  of  financial  embar- 
rassment that  almost  amounts  to  bankruptcy  for  all 
present  practical  purposes.  Maybe  Chicago  was  tem- 
porarily in  the  same  situation.  The  criticism  tends 
to  act  as  a  spur  toward  correction. 

Suppose  the  Nonpartisan  league  government  in  North 
Dakota  could  sue  every  newspaper  for  libel  and  harass 
it  thru  the  courts.  What  a  tremendous  power  for  harm 
for  oppression,  for  suppression  of  news  of  the  evil  fruits 
of  Townleyite  rule,  for  enabling  the  clique  to  hide  behind 
the  veil  of  silence  and  continue  to  delude  the  people 
such  a  system  would  give. 

Good  men  are  not  harmed  by  misstatements,  as  a 
rule.  Libel  actions  are  made  to  appear  vastly  more 
important  in  a  court  room  in  the  unnatural  atmosphere 
created  by  clever  attorneys  than  the  actual  facts  war- 
rant. But  very  seldom  is  a  man  injured  even  by  wrong 
statements.  Few  newspapers  deliberately  misstate  or 
attempt  to  injure  good  men.  Their  criticisms  of  the 
other  kind  are  a  public  service. 

So  the  whole  nation  should  rise  up  in  support  of  The 
Chicago  Tribune.  The  issue  is  not  a  fight  between 
Chicago  politicians  and  a  local  daily  there,  it  is  the 
question  of  free  speech  and  a  free  press  and  a  precedent 
that  will  mean  continuance  of  these  things  unhampered 
for  the  protection  of  the  nation,  or  a  reversion  toward 
the  old  days  of  star  chamber  government  and  wrong- 
doing made  easy. 


FARGO  (N.  D.)  Forum,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

A  Victory  for  Good  Government 

Regardless  of  the  merits  of  this  particular  case,  it 
would  have  been  a  very  dangerous  precedent  to  estab- 
lish if  the  City  of  Chicago  had  been  permitted  to  main- 
tain its  suit  for  $10,000,000  libel  against  the  Chicago 
Daily  News  and  The  Chicago  Tribune. 

The  suit  has  just  been  dismissed  on  a  demurrer,  the 
court  holding  that  the  city  had  no  cause  for  action. 

These  two  Chicago  papers  have  been  very  outspoken 
in  their  criticism  of  the  Thompson  administration  and 


[  100  ] 


every  decent  citizen  admits  the  criticism  has  been,  in 
the  main,  well  founded. 

But  the  city  administration  brought  suit  for  $10,000,- 
000,  claiming  the  city's  credit  had  been  destroyed  by 
the  publicity.  Undoubtedly  the  administration  was 
less  concerned  about  the  city's  credit  than  it  was  about 
putting  these  two  newspapers  out  of  business,  for  a 
verdict  for  that  amount  probably  would  have  bankrupted 
both  of  them. 

Also,  the  administration,  just  as  is  the  case  with  the 
North  Dakota  state  administration,  ignored  the  fact 
that  what  had  injured  the  city's  credit  in  the  first  place 
was  the  course  of  the  administration  and  not  the  publicity 
given  that  course. 

But  the  action  of  the  court  in  dismissing  the  case  per- 
mits the  taxpayers  to  retain  the  only  defense  they  have 
against  public  dishonesty  and  inefficiency.  If  the  suit 
had  been  maintained,  no  newspaper  in  America  would 
have  dared  raise  its  voice  in  criticism  of  any  municipal 
or  state  administration.  Criticism  would  be  construed 
as  libel  and  the  whole  power  of  the  municipal  or  state 
government  could  then  be  employed  to  put  the  news- 
paper out  of  business.  It  would  give  dishonest  politi- 
cians a  tremendous  club  to  silence  all  honest  and  inde- 
pendent criticism,  not  only  from  newspapers  but  from 
almost  every  source.  If  a  newspaper  could  libel  a  city 
government,  why  could  not  an  individual  be  guilty  of 
the  same  offense  in  making  a  speech  ? 

The  fact  that  some  newspapers  abuse  the  right  of 
criticism  does  not  warrant  silencing  all  criticism.  The 
decision  in  the  Chicago  case  is  a  victory  for  the  cause  of 
good  government  and  human  liberty. 

DEVILS  LAKE  (N.  D.)  Journal,  October  29,  1921. 

Press  Freedom 

The  suit  for  $10,000,000  damages  brought  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune  by  Mayor  Thompson  of  Chicago 
has  served  a  good  purpose  by  pointing  out  once  more, 
in  an  emphatic  manner,  the  function  and  merits  of  the 
newspaper  press  in  general. 

The  suit  was  dismissed  by  the  court  as  an  unwarranted 

[101] 


attack  on  the  freedom  of  the  press.  Because  the  Tribune 
criticized  the  mayor's  conduct  of  city  affairs,  the  mayor, 
identifying  himself  with  the  "city"  in  a  way  not  uncom- 
mon among  officeholders  of  long  tenure,  tried  to  put  the 
Tribune  out  of  business.  Judge  Fisher,  in  upholding 
the  right  of  the  defendant  to  publish  its  criticism,  de- 
clared : 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their 
power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force 
which  unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts  of 
public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would 
continue  undismayed  and  public  offices  would  be  the 
rich  reward  of  the  unscrupulous  demagogue." 

This  is  the  literal  truth,  as  every  thinking  citizen 
doubtless  agrees.  The  law  and  public  opinion  both 
recognize  that,  whatever  may  be  the  possibilities  of  the 
press  abusing  its  great  powers,  they  are  far  less  than  the 
dangers  that  would  spring  from  the  repression  of  honest 
comment. 

ALBUQUERQUE  (N.  M.)  Journal,  Oct.  3,  1921. 

Libel  Suits 

The  Chicago  Tribune  is  being  sued  for  libel  by  the  city 
of  Chicago.  The  basis  of  the  suit  is  the  Tribune's  state- 
ment that  the  city  is  bankrupt  by  reason  of  the  inefficiency 
and  criminality  of  the  Thompson  machine  which  con- 
trols it. 

A  demurrer  to  the  complaint  has  just  been  argued  and 
is  now  in  the  bosom  of  the  court  awaiting  the  pronounce- 
ment of  his  decision. 

The  demurrer  is  based  upon  the  argument  that  the 
freedom  of  the  press,  guaranteed  by  both  state  and  federal 
constitutions,  will  be  greatly  curtailed,  if  not  destroyed, 
if  governments,  either  municipal,  state  or  national,  can 
maintain  suits  for  libel  except  in  cases  of  sedition.  The 
immense  power  of  a  government  otherwise  can  be  used 
to  suppress  criticism  of  its  misconduct.  All  newspapers  in 
the  United  States  await  the  decision  with  intense  interest. 


[102] 


Suppose,  for  instance,  that  the  demurrer  he  overruled 
and  the  precedent  thereby  be  established  that  government 
can  main  lain  such  a  suit.  Thereafter  there  would  be 
nothing  to  prevent  the  state  of  New  Mexico  from  suing 
the  Journal  or  any  other  newspaper  for  any  criticism  of 
the  administration  of  the  state.  Silence  would  be  the 
result.  Evil  could  go  unscathed  and  extravagance  and 
favoritism  might  run  riot  without  exposure.  The  people 
would  be  unadvised  of  conditions  and  their  liberties  and 
rights  would  pass  from  them.  Such  a  situation  is  un- 
thinkable. 

Yet  an  effort  is  being  made  in  the  suits  of  J.  M.  Ray- 
nolds  and  A.  B.  McMillen  against  the  Journal  to  put  a 
construction  upon  the  libel  laws  which  would  set  a  prec- 
edent that  would  accomplish  the  same  result. 

Concerning  the  statements  made  by  the  Journal  re- 
garding these  men  upon  which  they  originally  brought 
suit,  we  do  not  care  to  say  anything.  We  promptly 
answered  in  those  cases  and  were  ready  to  try  the  cases 
in  the  courts  instead  of  in  the  newspapers.  The  question 
was  merely  whether  we  were  justified  in  certain  concrete 
statements  we  had  made  concerning  them. 

However,  these  gentlemen  were  unwilling  to  "go  to 
court"  on  these  remarks  which  they  originally  thought 
were  their  sources  for  a  grievance.  They  therefore  em- 
ployed lawyers  more  capable  than  themselves  and  have 
filed  amended  complaints.  It  is  these  amended  com- 
plaints which  are  a  menace  to  the  freedom  of  the  press 
and  therefore  a  menace  to  the  people.  If  the  principles 
of  law  which  they  attempt  to  lay  down  can  be  made  to 
stand  in  the  courts,  all  criticism  of  existing  conditions  in 
the  state  will  be  silenced.  Because  the  interests  of  the 
people  are  involved  so  vitally,  we  feel  free  to  discuss  the 
matter.  It  is  by  no  means  a  private  question  between 
Messrs.  Raynolds  and  McMillen  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Journal  and  its  editor  on  the  other  hand.  Wittingly  or 
unwittingly  these  gentlemen  are  striking  a  deadly  blow 
at  the  people  of  New  Mexico. 

The  Journal  has  talked  with  great  freedom  about  the 
bad  conditions  in  New  Mexico.  It  has  made  rather  con- 
crete charges  against  certain  influences  in  the  state. 
Sometimes  it  has  called  them  "bosses";  sometimes 
"higher  ups";  sometimes  the  "junta";  sometimes  the 


[103] 


"gang."  For  more  than  a  year  we  have  pointed  out  how 
the  state  has  suffered  at  their  hands.  During  all  of  that 
time  we  had  never  mentioned  the  plaintiffs  in  these  actions 
or  the  First  National  Bank  in  any  connection,  until  after 
July  15  of  this  year. 

Soon  after  the  latter  date  we  said  the  "gang"  was  after 
us.  The  allusion  pointed  rather  directly  to  the  First 
National  Bank.  These  gentlemen  now  plead  their  con- 
nection with  the  First  National  and  argue  that  the 
Journal  previously  used  the  word  "gang"  as  recited  above 
in  attacking  general  state  conditions.  Therefore,  they 
say,  when  we  later  used  the  word  "gang"  in  a  way  which 
pointed  to  the  First  National  that  we  imputed  to  that 
bank  all  that  we  had  previously  charged  against  the 
"gang"  in  earlier  months  and  that,  in  view  of  their  con- 
nection with  the  bank,  we  thereby  imputed  it  to  them 
personally.  So  they  sue  us  on  the  theory  that  what  we 
have  said  about  Fall,  Hawkins  and  others  previously, 
now  hurts  the  standing  of  Raynolds  and  McMillen. 

If  this  theory  can  be  established  as  the  law,  a  free  press 
in  New  Mexico  is  gone  forever.  Guy  Rogers  and  Charles 
White,  who  happen  to  be  executive  officers  of  the  First 
National,  can  maintain  suits,  saying  we  impute  to  them, 
merely  because  they  are  such  officers,  all  that  we  have 
said  over  a  year  gone  by.  Any  man  whom  we  have  ever 
intimated  that  we  thought  belonged  to  the  Invisible 
Government  in  New  Mexico  in  the  remotest  way  could 
sue  us  saying  that  we  charged  him  with  everything  with 
which  we  ever  had  charged  anybody. 

If  all  criticisms  of  vague  and  undefined  class  of  men  can 
be  imputed  to  every  individual  whom  we  have  intimated 
as  associated  with  that  class  in  any  phase  of  their  activ- 
ities, a  multiplicity  of  vexatious  suits  can  result  which 
would  crush  any  newspaper  by  the  dead  weight  of  ex- 
pense incident  to  their  trial. 

The  original  suits  of  these  two  men  could  have  been 
tried  in  two  days.  If  they  are  to  be  permitted  now  to  go 
into  all  that  we  have  said  about  other  men  in  an  effort 
to  show  that  we  mentally  included  the  plaintiffs  all  of 
the  time  and  secretly  meant  them  in  every  criticism,  the 
cases  can  not  be  tried  in  two  months.  The  sheer  expense 
of  trial  would  be  enormous.  If  this  c;m  l>r  done  news- 
papers must  cease  to  criticize  anyone. 


[104] 


The  people  should  be  alert  as  to  what  the  real  result  of 
these  cases  would  l>r  upon  the  freedom  of  the  press  in 
New  Mexico  in  case  a  court  should  hold  such  complaints 
to  be  good  pleading. 

No  one  wants  a  return  to  the  silence  of  the  grave  which 
prevailed  for  years.  If  this  can  be  accomplished,  any 
manner  of  selfish  or  corrupt  political  activity  is  safe  from 
exposure. 


ALBUQUERQUE  (N.  M.)  Journal,  Oct.  17, 

The  Tribune  Libel  Suit 

The  judge  hearing  the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune 
to  the  complaint  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against  lhat 
paper,  for  $10,000,000  damages  for  libel,  has  sustained 
that  demurrer  and  refused  to  allow  the  city  to  amend 
its  complaint.  This  ends  the  case  in  the  lower  court 
unless  the  decision  of  the  Appellate  court  remands  the 
case  with  a  reversal  of  the  ruling. 

The  Thompson-Lundin-Small  machine  has  ruined 
Chicago.  The  Tribune  said  so.  Under  the  plea  that 
the  strictures  of  the  Tribune  had  destroyed  the  credit  of 
the  city,  Mayor  Thompson  brought  this  action  in  the 
name  of  the  city.  The  court  has  said  "nothing  doing." 

One  shudders  in  contemplation  of  what  would  have 
happened  to  the  freedom  of  the  press  of  Illinois  to  discuss 
public  evils  had  this  malodorous  gang  succeeded  in  its 
attempt,  earlier  in  the  year,  to  elect  a  complete  judicial 
ticket.  With  the  judiciary  in  the  hands  of  the  gang, 
the  great  safeguards  of  liberty  and  property  would  have 
been  gone.  The  Tribune  would  have  been  put  out  of 
business  in  all  probability.  But  the  people  rebelled 
against  turning  the  courts  over  to  the  politicians  and  an 
impartial  judge  sat  between  the  Tribune  and  the  con- 
spirators. 

We  congratulate  the  Tribune.  We  also  congratulate 
the  people.  Freedom  of  discussion  is  not  to  be  curtailed 
in  Illinois.  A  little  later  we  will  see  whether  it  is  to  be 
curtailed  in  New  Mexico.  When  public  evils  of  every 
kind  cannot  be  discussed  before  the  people  with  safety 
to  the  newspaper,  our  liberties  will  disappear.  The 


[  10-5 


people  of  a  democracy  must  be  given  a  chance  to  know 
what  is  going  on. 

The  judge  in  the  Tribune  case  made  a  ruling  of  far- 
reaching  effect.  We  will  discuss  it  later.  In  brief,  he 
held  that  the  English  rule  of  libel  was  not  inherited  by 
the  United  States  along  with  the  common  law.  He  pro- 
nounced it  incompatible  with  the  genius  of  our  govern- 
ment. 

Unless  the  libel  law  is  evolved  and  liberalized  to  meet 
the  needs  of  a  democracy,  a  government  of  the  people 
can  not  survive.  They  must  know  the  evil  before  they 
can  correct  it. 

ALBUQUERQUE  (N.  M.)  Journal,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

More  About  the  Tribune  Libel  Suit 

The  Journal  is  in  receipt  of  fuller  information  than 
was  contained  in  the  press  dispatches  concerning  the 
decision  in  the  libel  suit  of  the  City  of  Chicago  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune.  Our  interest  in  the  matter  grows 
out  of  the  present  effort  in  New  Mexico  to  curb  the  free- 
dom of  the  press  through  the  medium  of  libel  suits 
brought  against  the  Journal. 

As  these  suits  were  originally  brought  against  us  we 
had  no  serious  objection  to  them.  It  was  really  a  rather 
personal  matter  between  Messrs.  Raynolds  and  Mc- 
Millen  and  the  Journal.  We  were  willing  to  leave  the 
matter  to  a  jury.  If  we  had  said  false  and  malicious 
things  concerning  these  gentlemen  we  were  willing  to 
be  held  responsible.  We  refrained  from  all  discussion 
of  the  facts,  pending  a  judicial  decision. 

But  the  amended  complaints  are  different.  These 
gentlemen  evidently  did  not  know  in  the  beginning  just 
how  they  considered  themselves  libeled,  although  they 
were  sufficiently  certain  in  their  own  minds  that  they 
had  been  injured  to  justify  beginning  some  kind  of  libel 
suits.  They  sued  us  for  one  libel  to  begin  with  and  for 
a  different  one  in  the  amended  complaints. 

At  present  they  wish  to  complain  that  the  Journal 
classed  them  with  a  "gang"  in  New  Mexico  and,  by 
inference,  charged  them  personally  with  all  the  evil 


[106] 


deeds  we  have  ever  chared  against  any  member  of  a 
gang.  So  they  wish  to  bring  every  editorial  utterance 
of  the  Journal  for  eighteen  months  in  issue.  To  read 
those  utterances  to  a  jury  would  require  weeks.  Such 
suits  would  weight  us  down  with  t lie  expense  of  the  liti- 
gation. If  these  men  can  maintain  such  a  suit  there 
is  no  reason  why  anyone4  who  conceives  that  his  name 
has  been  connected  remotely  or  inferentially  with  the 
"gang/'  cannot  maintain  a  libel  suit,  claiming  that  all 
we  have  charged  against  the  "gang"  is  imputed  to  him. 
Fifty  suits,  as  easily  as  two,  can  be  maintained  against 
us  for  these  same  utterances,  if  such  a  construction  of  the 
law  can  be  established.  It  can  be  seen  that  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  would  permit  any  newspaper  to 
be  smothered  into  silence  by  the  sheer  expenses  of  the 
litigation. 

Because  of  the  power  which  it  would  give  to  crush 
newspapers,  the  Chicago  judge  held  that  cities  could 
not  maintain  libel  suits.  He  decided  that  any  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  which  would  coerce  newspapers  into 
silence  is  contrary  to  a  sound  public  policy.  Listen  to 
these  quotations  from  his  decision : 

"This  action  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit, 
and  objects  of  our  institutions. 

"It  fits  in  rather  with  the  genius  of  the  rulers  who  con- 
ceived law  not  in  the  purity  of  love  for  justice  but  in  the 
lustful  passion  for  undisturbed  power. 

"  It  will  therefore  be  unnecessary  to  consider  the  other 
questions  involved." 

Judge  Fisher  took  up  Attorney  Kirkland's  first  and 
principal  contention — that  the  action  was  not  main- 
tainable, that  to  allow  a  recovery  would  violate  the  free- 
dom of  the  press  guaranteed  by  the  constitution. 

It  was  to  this  point  -that  he  devoted  himself  almost 
entirely  and  upon  this  argument  that  he  based  his  de- 
cision. 

"Stripped  of  all  elaborate  argument,"  he  said  in  this 
connection,  "the  fact  remains  that,  if  this  action  is  maintain- 
able, then  public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the 
most  effective  instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the 
press  and  to  silence  their  enemies. 

"It  is  a  weapon  to  hold  over  the  head  of  every  one  who 
dares  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the  men  in  power. 


[107] 


"It  is  not  the  sanctioning  of  falsehood,  it  is  the  protection 
of  the  right  to  speak  the  truth,  the  exercise  of  which  right 
would  become  very  hazardous  if  actions  such  as  this  could 
be  maintained.  For  fear  of  publishing  an  occasional  false- 
hood accidentally,  men  would  refrain  from  telling  the 
truth. 

"The  court  has  no  more  sympathy  with  newspapers 
indulging  in  scandal  and  defamation  than  have  the  most 
bitter  assailants  of  the  press.  But  the  remedy  is  not  to  be 
found  in  new  laws  suppressing  publication. 

"Such  laws  would  merely  result  in  suppressing  the  only 
remedy  for  the  evil — publication  of  the  truth — even  of  the 
press. 

"Fortunately,"  he  said,  "while  the  good  the  press  is 
capable  of  rendering,  if  unafraid,  is  without  limit,  the  harm 
it  can  do  has  its  own  limitations. 

"The  press  is  dependent  for  its  success,  for  its  very  exist- 
ence almost,  upon  public  confidence.  It  must  cater  to 
public  sentiment  even  as  it  labors  to  build  it  up.  It  cannot 
indulge  long  in  falsehoods  without  suffering  the  loss  of  that 
confidence  from  which  alone  comes  its  power,  its  prestige, 
and  its  reward. 

"On  the  other  hand,  the  harm  which  would  certainly 
result  to  the  community  from  an  officialdom  unrestrained 
by  fear  of  publicity  is  incalculable." 

The  Journal  holds  with  this  judge  that  defamation 
of  private  character  should  be  sternly  punished.  For 
that  purpose,  and  no  other,  libel  laws  should  exist. 
Whenever  such  laws  can  be  used  by  officials,  members 
of  invisible  government,  or  powerful  beneficiaries  of 
special  privilege  to  intimidate  newspapers  which  discuss 
public  evils,  official  or  unofficial,  it  is  indeed  contrary 
to  "the  genius,  spirit,  and  objects  of  our  institutions." 

Will  the  libel  law  be  so  construed  as  to  put  in  the 
hands  of  an  unofficial,  invisible  but  all-powerful  govern- 
ment, the  power  to  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  press  to 
discuss  public  wrongs? 

Whether  Messrs.  Raynolds  and  McMillen  are  seeking 
such  an  interpretation  of  the  law,  wittingly  or  unwittingly, 
is  immaterial.  The  legal  consequences,  in  case  their 
contention  is  upheld,  would  be  destructive  to  the  con- 
stitutional guarantee  of  the  freedom  of  the  press.  De- 
signing men,  seeking  to  perpetuate  undisturbed  their 
pernicious  power,  could  avail  themselves  of  that  decision. 


[108] 


From  The  Amarillo  Tribune,  reprinted  in  I  he 
SANTA  FE  (N.  M.)  Nrtr  Mr.rirun,  Oct.  ->S,    1921. 

Harking  Back  to  the  Stone  Age 

Some  lime  ago  The  Chicago  Tribune  declared  that  the 

city  of  Chicago  was  bankrupt.  The  city  fathers  filed  a 
ten  million  dollar  libel  suit  against  the  Tribune  and 
charged  that  the  publication  of  the  editorial  had  injured 
the  city's  credit. 

Saturday  the  case  was  thrown  out  of  court  by  Judge 
Harry  M .  Fisher,  who  declared: 

"This  suit  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  or 
objects  of  our  institutions.  It  does  not  belong  to  our  day, 
but  rather  to  the  day  when  monarchs  promulgated  laws 
with  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  their  lustful  passion  for 
undisturbed  power.  Since  no  cause  for  action  exists,  it 
is  unnecessary  to  consider  any  of  the  other  questions  in- 
volved in  the  arguments." 

It  would  have  been  a  fine  precedent  if  the  Chicago 
politicians  had  won  a  libel  suit  against  a  newspaper. 
If  published  criticisms  of  public  officials  and  govern- 
ments were  prohibited,  as  the  Chicago  suit  really  sought 
to  do,  free  government  would  become  a  myth.  The 
only  hope  of  democracy  is  based  on  three  great  prin- 
ciples, freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  the  press  and  free- 
dom of  religion.  Which  of  these  is  greatest  it  is  im- 
possible to  say,  but  to  permit  the  abridgment  of  any 
of  these  would  invite  revolution  ultimately. 

SALEM  (Ore.)  Statesman,  Oct.  25,  1921. 

In  throwing  out  the  city  of  Chicago's  $10,000,000  libel 
suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  the  judge  ended  one  of 
the  greatest  farces  that  ever  got  into  a  court  of  law.  The 
notion  that  in  criticizing  the  finances  of  a  city  a  newspaper 
exposed  itself  to  a  suit  for  damages  measured  by  the 
alleged  injury  to  the  city's  credit  was  worthy  of  the  pres- 
ent Thompson  administration  in  Chicago — and  that  is 
saying  a  mouthful. 

EUGENE  (Ore.)  Guard,  Oct.  28,  1921. 

The  Chicago  judge  who  dismissed  the  ten  million  dollar 
libel  suit  of  Mayor  Thompson  against  The  Chicago 


[109] 


Tribune  made  law  and  common  sense  harmonize  when  he 
said: 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power 
to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which 
unifies  public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts  of  public 
benefactors  would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue 
undismayed,  and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of 
the  unscrupulous  demagogue." 


MISSOULA  (Mont.)  Missoulian,  Oct.  25, 

In  dismissing  Mayor  Thompson's  libel  suit  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune,  Judge  Fisher  said:  "The  honest 
officials  never  fear  criticism."  We  don't  know  about 
fear,  but  we  have  observed  that  most  of  them  regard 
criticism  as  an  offense  that  should  be  prohibited  by  the 
constitution. 

WICHITA  (Kan.)  Beacon,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

No  Muzzled  Press 

The  victory  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  Chicago 
News  in  the  trumped-up  libel  suit  for  $10,000,000  brought 
by  Chicago  politicians  is  a  vindication  for  an  unmuzzled 
press. 

If  the  suit  had  gone  against  these  two  newspapers  a 
serious  precedent  would  have  been  set. 

These  papers  have  had  more  or  less  fault  to  find  with 
the  administration  of  William  Thompson,  mayor,  and 
his  lieutenants.  They  spoke  their  views  freely  in 
criticism.  Thru  the  instrumentality  of  Thompson  and 
his  forces,  libel  proceedings  were  commenced  against 
the  papers,  on  the  ground  that  their  criticisms  were 
impairing  the  credit  of  the  city.  Of  course  the  poli- 
ticians under  fire  were  not  really  afraid  of  that.  They 
resented  the  attack  being  made  upon  them. 

If  they  had  won  the  suit  it  would  have  meant  that 
newspapers  all  over  the  country  would  be  deprived  of  a 
considerable  portion  of  their  freedom  and  crooked 
politicians  would  have  much  easier  sailing. 

It  was  a  fortunate  thing  that  the  newspapers  were  left 
unmuzzled  and  free. 


[110] 


WINFIELD  (Kan.)  Press,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Chicago  Tribune  Suit 


In  throwing  out  the  city  of  (  liicatfo's  $10,000,000  libel 
suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  the  judge  has  ended 
one  of  the  greatest  farces  that  ever  got  into  a  court  of 
law.  The  notion  that  in  criticizing  the  finances  of  a  city 
a  newspaper  exposed  itself  to  a  suit  for  damages  meas- 
ured by  the  alleged  injury  to  the  city's  credit  was 
worthy  of  the  present  Thompson  administration. 

TOPEKA  (Kan.)  Daily  Capital,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

The  Freedom  of  the  Press 

Judge  H.  M.  Fisher  of  the  circuit  court  of  Chicago 
made  short  work  of  sustaining  The  Chicago  Tribune's 
demurrer  to  the  action  brought  by  the  Thompson  polit- 
ical machine  of  Chicago  for  10  million  dollars'  damages, 
the  suit  being  brought  in  the  name  of  the  city.  Mayor 
Thompson  and  the  city  machine  alleged  that  the 
Tribune's  attacks  upon  the  city  government  had  vastly 
damaged  the  city's  credit  and  good  name.  They  evi- 
dently were  conscious  that  a  libel  suit  on  behalf  of  them- 
selves individually  would  have  little  chance  of  a  verdict, 
and  by  bringing  the  action  in  the  name  of  the  city  they 
avoided  liability  personally  for  costs  and  attorney  fees. 

In  his  decision  sustaining  the^JTribune's^demurrer 
Judge  Fisher  held  that  the  suit  is  contrary  to  "the 
genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions,"  included 
therein  being  a  free  press.  At  a  time  when  there  is  wide- 
spread criticism  of  the  newspaper  press  Judge  Fisher's 
remarks  are  worth  reading.  He  says: 

The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world.  .  .  . 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power  to 
advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  unifies 
public  sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  benefactors 
would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undismayed 
and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupu- 
lous demagogue. 

These  are  just  acknowledgments  of  the  service  ren- 
dered the  public  by  an  unshackled  press,  a  service  not 


[mi 


always  valued  at  its  true  worth,  but  recognized  when  a 
crisis  or  emergency  arises  which  threatens  to  hamper  it. 
Judge  Fisher  enumerates  some  of  the  functions  per- 
formed by  the  American  newspaper  which  make  it 
necessary  to  good  order  and  the  common  welfare.  In 
Chicago  the  power  of  the  press,  sometimes  described  as 
a  menace,  is  as  great  as  anywhere  in  the  country,  yet 
has  not  been  powerful  enough  to  protect  the  people  of 
Chicago  from  misrule.  It  is  not  Chicago's  press,  but 
its  voters,  who  are  responsible  for  the  Thompson 
machine.  And  this  may  be  said  of  every  important  city 
suffering  from  corrupt  or  incompetent  government. 

KEARNEY  (Neb.)  Times,  Sept.  20,  1921. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  is  enjoying  the  luxury  of  a  ten 
million  dollar  libel  suit  brought  by  the  city  of  Chicago, 
or  rather  by  Mayor  Thompson  in  behalf  of  his  adminis- 
tration, which  is  as  thoroughly  damned  throughout  the 
country  as  Tammany  was  ever  damned  in  its  palmiest 
days.  The  question  at  issue  is  really  the  "freedom  of 
the  press,"  in  the  sense  that  criticism  on  a  basis  of  gen- 
erally known  facts  is  libelous  and  punishable. 

NORFOLK  (Neb.)  News,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

Free  Press  at  Issue 

The  libel  suit  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  for  $10,000,000  raises  several  interesting  points 
of  law  and  public  policy,  but  none  is  of  greater  importance 
than  the  one  involving  the  right  of  a  newspaper  to 
criticize  city  officials  where  the  criticism  might  be  taken 
to  reflect  on  the  financial  condition  of  the  city.  The 
Chicago  Tribune  was  brought  into  court  by  the  city 
officials  after  it  had  severely  criticised  the  conduct  of  the 
city's  affairs  by  the  "Big  Bill"  Thompson  administration. 
It  would  be  a  pretty  safe  guess  to  say  that  "Big  Bill" 
was  more  concerned  on  the  effect  of  the  criticisms  upon 
his  political  future  than  upon  the  financial  standing  of  the 
city.  But  be  that  as  it  may  the  question  raised  is 
whether  or  not  severe  limitations  are  to  be  placed  upon 
the  right  of  a  newspaper  to  comment  upon  the  acts  of 


[112] 


public  officials.  If  the  libel  suit  goes  against  the  Tribune 
it  will  be  difficult  for  the  press,  or  for  individuals,  for  that 
matter,  to  discuss  freely  the  conduct  of  the  finances  of  a 
city  by  its  officials. 

Municipal  finances  are  so  closely  related  to  the  admin- 
istration  in  power  that  it  is  difficult  to  discuss  one  without 
involving  the  other.  Heretofore  it  has  been  considered 
that  public  policy  demanded  the  widest  freedom  in  the 
discussion  of  public  officers  and  candidates  for  office. 
Only  by  such  discussion  can  the  merits  or  demerits  of 
officials  be  brought  to  public  attention. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Gov.  Small,  one  of  "Big 
Bill's"  lieutenants,  took  the  virtual  ground  recently 
that  the  governor  of  a  state  was,  like  the  king  of  old, 
above  the  law  and  could  not  be  prosecuted  on  the  charge 
of  embezzlement,  a  charge  which  had  been  brought 
against  Small.  The  courts  decided  that  the  suit  against 
the  governor  was  not  immune  from  prosecution.  The 
Tribune  appears  to  involve  a  similar  contention.  The 
outcome  will  be  awaited  with  great  interest. 

FREMONT  (Neb.)  Tribune,  Sept.  27,  1921. 

An  Important  Libel  Suit 

A  case  is  in  progress  in  Chicago  that  is  fraught  with 
mighty  results  for  the  people,  and  for  newspapers  in 
particular.  Mayor  Thompson  has  brought  suit  against 
The  Chicago  Daily  Tribune  for  $10,000,000  and  against 
the  Chicago  Daily  News  for  a  like  amount,  alleging  libel 
damages  by  each  paper  in  amounts  stated.  The  peti- 
tion avers  the  papers  are  guilty  of  stating  that  the  City 
of  Chicago  was  bankrupt,  and  thus  injuring  the  credit 
of  the  municipality.  These  statements  were  in  criticism 
of  the  Thompson  administration  for  the  extravagant 
way  in  which  it  was  carrying  on  the  government  of  the 
city  that  made  it  necessary  to  vote  20  millions  of  dollars 
in  bonds  to  pay  current  expenses. 

The  Tribune  has  been  called  into  court  first  and  has 
filed  a  demurrer  which  is  at  this  time  before  the  court. 
The  newspaper's  attorney  is  denying  the  right  of  a  city 
administration  to  bring  a  suit  in  the  name  of  a  munici- 
pality. It  is  claimed  the  prosecution  of  such  a  suit  is  a 


menace  to  the  freedom  of  the  press,  and  an  abridgment 
of  the  right  to  criticize  public  officials.  Take  away  from 
a  newspaper  the  right  of  publicity  in  connection  with  any 
public  administration  and  its  privilege  to  point  out  official 
corruption,  you  have  immediately  laid  the  foundation 
for  the  perpetuation  of  a  corrupt  government,  and  with 
no  hope  of  its  dislodgment.  If  newspaper  publicity 
is  to  be  curtailed  how,  then,  would  entrenched  corrup- 
tion ever  be  dislodged?  What  protection  would  the 
taxpayer  have  against  a  plundering  gang  that  would 
corruptly  squander  public  funds?  As  it  is  now,  with 
almost  an  unlimited  right  of  the  press  in  this  regard,  it 
is  impossible  to  stop  the  rankest  plundering  of  the  public 
treasury.  The  people  cannot  afford  to  have  any  re- 
strictions in  this  regard  thrown  around  the  newspapers 
of  America. 

If  this  suit  is  permitted  to  come  to  trial,  every  news- 
paper in  America  will  be  subject  to  possible  embarrass- 
ment from  the  filing  of  such  suits.  Suit  after  suit  could 
be  instigated  which  would  bankrupt  the  publishers  to 
pay  lawyers'  fees  and  court  costs.  A  threat  of  such 
suits  would  be  an  effectual  warning  to,  and  restraint 
against,  a  newspaper  publisher  that  he  could  not  indulge 
in  the  criticism  of  a  government  that  was  spending  public 
funds  with  an  unrestrained  hand — even  to  the  point  of 
bankrupting  the  public  treasury.  If  such  suits  can  be 
initiated  and  carried  forward,  we  would  have  the  anoma- 
lous situation  of  the  money  of  the  public  being  used  to 
prosecute  the  very  agency  that  is  the  public's  only  pro- 
tection against  looting  public  funds  and  the  possible 
bankruptcy  of  the  political  division,  whether  it  be  a 
town,  city,  or  state. 

The  political  gang  that  has  control  of  Chicago  is  very 
powerful,  and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  it  can  make 
these  attempted  law  suits  stick. 

GRAND  ISLAND  (Neb.)  Independent,  Oct.  1,  1921. 

The  Johnstown  Democrat  comments  quite  to  the 
point  in  pointing  out  that  if  the  city  of  Chicago  wins 
its  suit  of  libel  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  the  effect 
will  be  bad  on  popular  government  rather  than  good. 
The  suit  is  a  novelty.  Says  the  Democrat:  "Chicago 


[114] 


is  suing  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  ten  million  dollars  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  libeled  by  that  publication.  The 
city  holds  thai  I  he  Tribune's  attacks  were  untrue,  thai 
they  tended  to  impair  confidence  and  undermine  credit 
and  as  a  result  had  a  disastrous  effect  upon  the  municipal- 
ity's plans  to  borrow  money.  The  point  raised  is  an 
interesting  one.  A  corporation  has  redress  in  law  if  it 
is  attacked.  There  was  a  time  when  a  corporation 
could  not  sue  for  libel.  Corporation  lawyers  had  a  bill 
passed  in  most  states  that  gave  the  corporation  the  libel 
status  of  the  individual.  The  result  is  that  the  city 
of  Chicago  comes  into  court.  If  the  city  of  Chicago 
were  to  win  its  suit,  the  entire  plant  of  The  Chicago 
Tribune  would  be  wiped  out.  Moreover,  if  the  city 
were  to  win  its  suit,  no  newspaper  would  dare  criticize 
the  financial  management  of  any  of  our  municipalities. 
The  suit,  the  Tribune  says,  represents  an  attempt  to 
throttle  the  press.  And  so  it  is.  The  case  is  one  that 
will  be  watched  with  unusual  interest." 

SCOTTSBLUFF  (Neb.)  News,  Oct.  15,  1921 

An  Attempt  to  Muzzle  the  Press 

The  Chicago  courts,  in  sustaining  the  demurrer  of  The 
Chicago  Tribune  to  the  libel  suit  against  it  by  the  city 
administration  under  Mayor  Thompson,  have  prevented 
another  effort  to  muzzle  the  press. 

The  Tribune  has  been  an  able  and  powerful  friend  of 
the  people  of  Chicago  in  protecting  them  against  the 
administration  of  Mayor  Thompson.  It  has  fearlessly 
challenged  his  methods,  has  fought  his  alleged  system  of 
looting  the  treasury,  and  has  been  a  vigorous  friend  of 
good  government  during  the  time  when  good  government 
was  apparently  undesired  in  Chicago. 

Stung  by  the  many  attacks  made  against  him,  Mayor 
Thompson  finally  instructed  his  city  attorney  to  start 
suit  for  $10,000,000  libel  against  the  Tribune.  The  courts 
have  thrown  out  the  suit.  If  the  newspapers  of  the  land 
are  to  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  criticism,  of  investiga- 
tion and  of  printing  the  facts  about  the  city  adminis- 
trations, then  one  of  the  best  means  of  defense  against 
maladministration  in  office  will  be  lost.  It  was  not 


[115] 


until  papers  began  to  be  published  and  not  until  the 
papers  were  freed  from  censorship  by  rulers,  that  the 
cause  of  the  common  people  began  to  succeed. 

Liberty  of  the  press  has  been  one  of  the  most  precious 
rights  of  mankind.  It  never  is  very  popular  with  public 
officials,  especially  with  a  certain  kind  of  public  officer, 
but  it  has  always  been  the  main  reliance  of  the  mass  of 
people,  in  protecting  their  liberties.  It  is  as  inalienable 
a  right  as  that  of  trial  by  jury. 

It  has  been  protected  again,  by  the  decision  of  the 
Chicago  courts.  It  could  not  well  be  otherwise.  There 
is  no  place  for  the  venomous  newspaper,  the  one  that 
prints  the  sly  slur;  but  there  is  every  demand  for  the 
honest,  fearless  newspaper  of  true  convictions,  and  the 
courage  to  voice  them. 

LINCOLN  (Neb.)  Star,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  decision  that  was  of  far-reaching  effect  in  regards 
to  newspapers  was  that  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher,  in  de- 
ciding that  the  city  of  Chicago  had  no  cause  for  action 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune,  in  a  suit  for  $10,000,000 
for  libel.  The  city  alleged  that  the  paper  had  pub- 
lished an  article  that  damaged  the  city's  credit,  by 
printing  false  statements  regarding  the  city's  credit. 
The  judge  ruled  that  portions  of  English  common  laws 
in  this  regard  had  not  been  inherited  by  the  United  States, 
and  that  the  freedom  of  the  press  in  this  country  was  in  no 
matter  thereby  restricted. 

YORK  (Neb.)  News-Times,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

By  the  decision  of  Judge  Fisher  in  Chicago  sustaining 
the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  in  the  suit  for 
damages  by  the  city  of  Chicago,  the  principle  of  the 
freedom  of  the  press  is  further  sustained. 

NEBRASKA  CITY  (Neb.)  Press,  Oct.  25,  1921. 

It  is  no  longer  a  crime  for  a  newspaper  to  criticize 
a  city  government.  The  city  of  Chicago,  through  its 
mayor,  sued  two  Chicago  newspapers  for  $10,000,000 
because  the  newspapers  had  said  the  city  was  about  to  be 
bankrupted  through  the  machinations  of  careless  or 
indifferent  officials.  The  mayor  declared  the  news- 
papers had  brought  the  city  into  public  scandal  and 


[116] 


disgrace  by  publishing  (he  facts.     The  court  held  other- 
wise, however. 

PALMYRA  (Mo.)  Spectator,  Sept.  21,  1921. 

Chicago,  always  enterprising,  is  trying  something  new. 
The  city,  as  a  corporation,  is  suing  The  Chicago  Tribune 
and  the  News  for  $10,000,000  each  for  libel.  These 
papers  contained  many  items  saying  the  city  was  broke, 
financially,  and  said  other  things  the  Mayor  thinks  are 
very  detrimental  to  Chicago's  interests.  There  is  little 
probability  of  judgment  being  secured  for  these  enor- 
mous amounts,  or  any  other  amounts,  for  that  matter. 
It  is  not  that  the  city  has  been  damaged  by  the  criticism 
of  the  papers  but  very  likely  the  feelings  of  the  officials 
running  it  have  been  hurt. 

KANSAS  CITY  (Mo.)  Star,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

A  City  Gang  Tries  Intimidation 

What  presumes  to  be  the  city  of  Chicago  hasHbrought 
suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  and  the  Chicago  Daily 
News  for  libel.  In  each  case  the  plaintiff  asks  that 
damages  of  10  million  dollars  be  awarded.  The  suit 
grows  out  of  the  contention  of  the  city,  so-called,  that 
criticism  by  the  defendants  of  the  financial  administra- 
tion of  city  business  embarrassed  the  city  in  obtaining 
loans  and  was  detrimental  to  the  city's  credit.  The 
city  has  brought  suit  in  its  corporate  capacity. 

The  Tribune  filed  a  general  demurrer  against  the  suit, 
contending  that  the  city  had  no  case.  A  hearing  to 
test  the  validity  of  the  case  was  begun  last  Thursday. 
In  a  formal  statement  out  of  court  the  Tribune  has  held 
that  at  the  time  of  filing  of  the  suit  last  December  "the 
city  hall  machine  controlled  the  mayor's  office  of  Chicago, 
the  Chicago  city  council  and  the  newly  elected  governor." 
The  statement  further  maintains  that  this  political 
force  planned  to  gain  control  of  the  state  legislature, 
the  circuit  court  of  Cook  County,  and  in  fact  to  dominate 
the  city  and  state  governments  altogether.  Only  the 
Tribune,  it  is  contended,  was  left  to  fight  this  threatened 
domination;  and  it  is  in  retaliation  for  this  opposition 
that  the  machine,  assuming  itself  to  be  the  city,  has 


[117] 


brought  suit,  declared  by  the  defendant  to  aim  at  com- 
plete destruction  of  the  newspaper  and  to  restrict  the 
due  freedom  of  the  press. 

The  outstanding  question  to  be  decided  in  this  case 
will  be  whether  a  city  or  municipal  corporation  may 
bring  suit  for  libel  against  a  newspaper  that  would 
involve  the  virtual  annihilation  of  the  newspaper. 
Counsel  for  the  Tribune  has  contended  that  a  suit  for 
libel  may  be  brought  by  a  public  official  or  officials  as 
an  individual  or  individuals,  but  "that  the  city  govern- 
ment as  a  government,  with  all  the  immense  power 
behind  it,  should  not  be  permitted  to  prosecute  for 
words  merely  bringing  it  into  'contempt,  ridicule  and 
scorn'  before  its  citizens,  who  have  the  right  to  change 
it  in  form,  nature  and  conduct." 

Counsel  for  the  plaintiff,  who  maintains  that  the  suit 
is  brought  by  no  political  party  but  "by  the  city  and  its 
3  million  inhabitants,"  answers  that  these  parties  are 
asking  "not  the  suppression  of  any  publication  of  truth, 
fair  comment  or  criticism,  but  that  this  defendant 
newspaper  should  not  have  the  right  deliberately, 
maliciously  and  falsely  to  tell  lies." 

Machine  politicians,  when  under  fire  for  what  they 
have  done  in  their  official  capacity,  always  like  to  insist 
that  the  attacks  are  on  the  fair  name  of  the  city  or  the 
state.  They  think  to  confuse  the  public  by  identifying 
themselves  with  the  government.  So  Gov.  Len  Small 
of  Illinois  proposed  at  first  to  resist  arrest  for  defrauding 
the  state  of  funds  on  the  ground  that  his  arrest  would 
interfere  with  the  workings  of  the  state  government. 

The  suits  brought  by  the  Thompson  machine  in 
Chicago  against  the  two  newspapers  in  the  name  of  the 
city  will  be  recognized  by  the  public  generally  for  what 
they  are — an  effort  to  intimidate  the  newspapers  from 
exposing  what  the  gang  is  doing. 

KANSAS  CITY  (Mo.)  Star,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Free  Government  Upheld  in  Chicago 

Judge  Fisher's  ruling  in  Chicago  dismissing  the  case 
which  the  city  government  had  brought,  in  the  name  of 
the  city,  against  The  Chicago  Tribune,  marks  another 
victory  for  the  principle  upon  whose  maintenance  our 


[118] 


whole  modern  theory  of  government  depends.  The 
Chicago  officials  who  sought  to  break  down  that  prin- 
ciple have  only  succeeded  in  making  it  more  secure. 

The  principle  involved  was  a  fundamental  one  and 
Judge  Fisher's  ruling  was  the  stronger  and  more  con- 
clusive of  the  issue  for  being  based  solidly  and  un- 
compromisingly on  it  rather  than  on  a  mere  legal  ism. 
He  rested  it  upon  a  doctrine  that  is  quite  literally  the 
foundation  of  free  government  wherever  it  exists  in  the 
world,  for  if  that  doctrine  had  not  been  established, 
and  if  government  under  whatever  form  had  made  secure 
its  pretension  to  be  the  arbiter  of  thought  and  speech 
and  assembly,  all  governments  today  would  be  autoc- 
racies. 

The  action  of  the  plaintiff,  he  declared,  was  not  in 
harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our 
institutions.  This  declaration  goes  to  the  heart  of  the 
matter.  Let  it  be  supposed  that  any  group  of  public 
officials,  in  a  city,  state  or  nation,  could  maintain  the 
doctrine  the  plaintiff  relied  on  in  this  case.  They  could 
declare  themselves  to  be  the  city,  state  or  nation,  and 
acting  in  that  capacity  could  suppress  any  newspaper 
that  dared  to  criticize  their  acts,  silence  public  speech 
and  forbid  public  assembly.  They  would,  in  making 
good  such  pretensions,  set  government  back  where  it 
was  when  absolutism  in  France  and  England  broke  up 
the  presses,  burned  the  books,  maimed  and  imprisoned 
the  printers  and  searched  the  houses  of  citizens  suspected 
of  knowing  how  to  read. 

The  power  of  declaring  what  shall  be  printed  and  read 
has  never  been  given  into  the  hands  of  any  modern 
government,  and  for  the  best  of  reasons.  It  is  a  power 
that  inevitably  tends  to  destroy  freedom.  There  is  a 
law  of  libel,  and  there  are  proper  laws  determining  what 
is  obscene,  immoral  and  defamatory.  These  laws  are 
based  upon  grounds  of  public  policy.  But  there  is  no 
law  in  America  that  forbids  political  discussion,  or  dis- 
cussion or  criticism  of  the  acts  of  political  agents.  There 
never  can  be  such  a  law  while  free  government  exists. 

If  public  officials  need  any  protection  against  the  press, 
other  than  that  afforded  by  the  law  of  libel,  they  have  it  in 
the  fact,  as  Judge  Fisher  points  out,  that  the  power  of 
a  newspaper  to  injure  a  community  or  a  public  official  is 


[119] 


limited  by  the  degree  of  public  favor  it  enjoys.  If  a 
newspaper  habitually  misrepresents  the  facts,  shows 
animus,  unfairness  or  spite,  it  cannot  retain  public  con- 
fidence or  influence  public  opinion.  That  is  sufficient 
protection  for  any  public  official  conscious  that  he  is 
performing  his  public  duty.  To  give  into  the  hands 
of  officials  who  want  to  conceal  their  acts  the  power  to 
silence  a  newspaper  that  exposes  and  denounces  them 
is  to  thrust  the  whole  public  out  of  participation  in  its 
own  government  and  to  give  that  privilege  over  to  any 
clique  powerful  enough  to  seize  and  hold  it. 

Judge  Fisher  has  thrown  this  amazing  pretension  out 
of  court,  and  in  so  doing  has  rendered  a  far-reaching 
opinion,  not  in  favor  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  alone,  but 
in  favor  of  the  American  people,  the  real  defendants 
in  the  case. 

ST.  Louis  (Mo.)  Globe  Democrat,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

Can  Governments  Be  Libeled? 

The  question  really  involved  in  the  $10,000,000  suit 
which  the  City  of  Chicago  through  its  present  corps  of 
officials  has  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  because 
of  criticism  of  municipal  finances  is  whether  government, 
whatever  its  degrees,  City,  State  or  Federal,  can  be 
libeled  under  the  principles  of  law  that  now  prevail. 
Something  very  close  to  this  question  was  raised  when 
President  Roosevelt  directed  the  prosecution  of  a  New 
York  paper  or  its  responsible  heads  for  criticisms  on 
the  purchase  of  the  DeLesseps  company's  rights  in  the 
Panama  Canal,  but  the  point  was  obscured  by  a  contest 
over  court  jurisdiction  in  which  the  newspaper  was 
sustained.  While  the  Chicago  suit  can  probably  have 
but  one  ending,  we  may  be  glad  that  it  was  brought 
because  of  the  fine  argument  on  the  history  and  present 
quality  of  press  immunity,  submitted  on  a  demurrer 
in  the  case  by  Wey mouth  Kirkland.  The  conventional 
libel  argument  dwells  much  on  British  precedents.  Mr. 
Kirkland  brought  to  general  knowledge  from  the  text- 
books a  decisive  American  case,  that  of  one  Zender  in 
New  York  who,  as  far  back  as  1735,  ten  years  after  the 
royal  prerogative  of  licensing  and  censoring  newspapers 


[120] 


had  been  abolished  in  the  colonies,  was  prosecuted  for 
denouncing  a  corrupt  Colonial  Governor.  He  was 
acquitted  and  Robert  Morris'  declaration,  qimlrd  by 
Mr.  Kirkland,  was  to  the  effect  that  the  result  was  "Ihr 
germ  of  American  freedom,  the  morning  star  of  that 
liberty  which  subsequently  revolutionized  America." 
The  case  is  one  with  which  all  Americans  should  be 
familiar. 

The  Chicago  suit  is  a  civil,  not  a  criminal,  case.  Though 
a  wide  latitude  is  permitted  in  discussing  the  acts  of 
individual  government  officials,  it  is  proper  that  they 
should  be  given  a  right  of  action  in  instances  of  out- 
rageous and  malicious  misrepresentation.  But  the  doc- 
trine that  government  itself,  that  impersonal  entity 
made  up  of  many  collective  forces  and  influences,  can 
institute  on  its  own  behalf  either  criminal  or  civil  action 
for  libel  is  a  most  dangerous  one.  Abuses  will  arise  and 
do  arise  of  course  by  reason  of  government's  lack  of 
defense  in  the  courts  against  misrepresentation,  and  in- 
dividuals associated  with  government  may  suffer  oc- 
casional injustice,  but  any  damage  resulting  is  only 
temporary  and  truth  will  ultimately  prevail.  If  unfair 
criticism  could  be  penalized,  a  way  would  be  opened 
to  penalize  righteous  criticism. 

Judicial  remedies  should  of  course  be  open  to  all 
others,  but  for  the  government  itself  to  utilize  one  of 
the  most  powerful  of  its  own  agencies,  the  courts,  to 
draw  a  line  between  what  is  permissible  and  what  is 
not  permissible  in  criticisms  of  government  would  involve 
many  perils.  It  is  a  privilege  which  free  governments 
may  wisely  forego  and  in  foregoing  it  they  draw  to 
themselves  elements  of  greater  strength,  not  weakness. 

ST.  Louis  (Mo.)  Times,  Sept.  26,  1921. 

When  a  City  Is  Slandered 

The  people,  rather  than  a  jury,  can  penalize  a  news- 
paper which  libels  its  own  city.  The  suit  of  the  City  of 
Chicago — which  is  really  the  suit  of  the  Mayor — against 
The  Chicago  Tribune  should  result  in  victory  for  the 
newspaper.  The  mere  matter  of  the  damaging  of  the 
municipality  from  improper  utterances  of  the  journal 


[121] 


is  less  important  than  the  issue  of  the  freedom  of  the 
press  which  is  involved. 

Fully  as  vital,  however,  is  the  phase  represented  in 
officialdom  seeking  to  take  to  itself  the  power  to  punish, 
which  the  reading  public  possesses,  and  which  the  reading 
public  quite  dependably  employs. 

For  the  lying  newspaper  does  not  permanently  de- 
ceive a  large  portion  of  its  readers.  A  great  majority 
of  the  people  are  intelligent,  and  are  capable  of  forming 
cool  judgment  from  facts  they  discern  by  sensible  measur- 
ing of  affairs  in  their  visible  development.  These  people 
know  how  to  discount  the  prejudiced  story,  the  exag- 
gerated declaration,  the  innuendo.  They  know,  more- 
over, when  falsehood  is  being  employed,  and  while 
their  attitude  may  not  seem  resentful,  they  will  make 
their  repudiation  of  misrepresentation  felt  in  good  time. 

There  may  be  temporary  deception  where  malevolent 
and  undisputed  statements  continue,  but  ere  long  the 
very  bitterness  of  the  course  will  arouse  the  suspicion 
of  fair-minded  citizenship.  Some  of  the  most  carefully 
planned  campaigns  of  falsehood  have  plainly  revealed 
their  purpose  as  to  bring  repudiation  of  the  course  by 
the  people  before  the  latter  understood  the  real  facts. 
They  did  not  know  the  truth,  but  they  could  recognize 
lying. 

When  the  good  name  and  the  welfare  of  a  community 
are  involved  in  a  campaign  of  misrepresentation,  the 
unmasking  of  the  liar  is  especially  certain.  No  loyal 
citizen  wants  his  home  town  defamed,  and  when  an 
editor — carried  away  by  a  determination  to  accomplish  his 
ends  through  whatever  means  seem  easiest  to  employ- 
maligns  his  city  and  its  defenders,  he  will  be  made  to 
feel  the  displeasure  of  the  people.  Their  repudiation 
of  his  tactics  is  worth  more  to  the  slandered  community 
than  any  other  redress  it  might  obtain. 

ST.  Louis  (Mo.)  Globe-Democrat,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  Notable  Decision 

The  libel  suit  for  $10,000,000  brought  by  the  City  of 
Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  has  been  thrown 
out  of  court.  The  city,  through  its  officials,  contended 


[122] 


llial  the  publication  of  a  statement  Ilia!  Chicago  was 
bankrupt  made  il  impossible  to  sell  mimieipal  bonds 
and  was  libelous.  Circuit  Judge  II.  M.  Fislier  sustained 
the  demurrer  to  I  lie  suit,  holding  that  there  was  no  cause 
of  action. 

Another  precedent  which  will  be  valuable  in  deter- 
mining more  exactly  what  constitutes  the  freedom  of 
the  press  has  been  set  by  this  decision.  But  the  suit 
was  peculiarly  lacking  in  any  justifiable  "cause  of  ac- 
tion," alleging  that  interviews  quoting  several  Alder- 
men as  saying  that  the  city  was  bankrupt  were  libelous, 
and  that  the  newspaper,  not  the  officials  who  were 
interviewed,  was  the  instrument  of  the  misrepresentation. 
It  was,  moreover,  directed  by  officials  who  were  capable 
of  personal  resentment  toward  criticism  of  their  admin- 
istration, but  in  the  name  of  a  government  itself  im- 
personal and  distinct. 

Weymouth  Kirkland,  attorney  for  the  Tribune,  cited 
in  his  argument  a  notable  libel  suit  in  the  early  history 
of  the  country,  in  which  a  New  York  publisher  named 
Zender,  in  1735,  was  prosecuted  for  denouncing  a  cor- 
rupt Colonial  Governor.  He  was  acquitted,  and  a  most 
significant  principle  of  American  thought  and  legal  en- 
actment, that  of  the  immunity  of  the  press  from  dom- 
ination from  any  source,  whether  a  power  within  the 
government  or  without,  had  its  beginning.  This  prin- 
ciple has  not  been  allowed  to  deteriorate.  Sedition  is 
without  its  boundaries;  criticism  of  government  and 
government  officials  is  not. 

Those  who  may  be  dealt  with  unfairly,  or  falsely 
accused,  and  who  are  actually  the  objects  of  libel,  should 
not  be  left  without  means  of  recovery;  but  this  was 
not  true  of  the  City  of  Chicago  in  its  suit  against  the 
Tribune.  The  court  said  that  the  suit  was  not  in  accord 
with  the  "genius,  spirit  or  objects  of  our  institutions." 
The  newspaper  is  one  of  these  institutions.  It  has 
helped  much  in  the  organization  of  modern  society. 
The  contact  of  today  between  people  and  nations  is 
mainly  of  its  creation.  Complexities  that  now  adhere 
to  every  department  of  life  would  permit  of  endless 
abuse  if  the  right  of  the  press  to  free  speech  were  abridged. 
This  was  recognized  by  the  court  in  the  suit  against  the 
Tribune.  The  decision  adds  weight  to  precedents  al- 


[123] 


ready  established  and  makes  it  clear  that  the  freedom 
of  the  press  is  as  indispensable  now  as  in  the  eighteenth 
century. 

ST.  Louis  (Mo.)  Post-Dispatch,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

The  Press  Must  Be  Free 

Judge  Fisher's  decision  in  the  $10,000,000  libel  suit 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  against  The  Chicago  Tribune 
is  a  sweeping  assertion  of  the  right  and  duty  of  news- 
papers to  keep  the  public  fully  informed  of  the  conduct 
of  the  Government  and  of  public  officials  and  to  criticize 
official  and  governmental  acts  which  in  its  opinion  are 
detrimental  to  the  public  welfare. 

The  judicial  opinion  is  such  a  clear  and  comprehensive 
statement  of  the  functions  of  a  newspaper  as  the  guardian 
of  public  interests  and  the  instrument  by  which  the  pub- 
lic is  kept  informed  of  all  things  necessary  to  enlightened 
opinion  and  judgment  on  the  conditions  of  society  and 
governmental  acts,  that  it  ought  to  be  universally  read 
by  the  people.  The  Judge  forcefully  defines  the  right 
of  the  newspapers  to  publish  all  facts  bearing  upon  the 
public  welfare  and  to  comment  upon  them  for  the  pur- 
pose of  informing  and  directing  public  opinion  and  thus 
unifying  and  crystallizing  it  for  action  against  the  bad 
and  for  the  good. 

The  only  conditions  which  govern  the  liberty  of  the 
press  are  the  honesty  and  sincerity  of  its  purpose  and 
the  conscientious  and  reasonable  care  exercised  by  the 
newspaper  in  ascertaining  the  truth  and  expressing  its 
own  opinion.  The  object  must  be  the  public  welfare 
and  never  the  injury  of  the  public  official  whose  conduct 
is  subject  to  exposure  and  criticism  or  detraction  of  the 
administration  whose  acts  are  condemned.  While  the 
Judge's  comments  upon  the  functions  of  newspapers 
are  highly  interesting  and  instructive,  a  few  paragraphs 
on  the  main  point  at  issue  show  the  scope  of  the  decision : 

Stripped  of  all  the  elaborate  argument  in  the  confusion 
of  which  the  question  for  decision  might  look  difficult,  the 
fact  remains  that,  if  this  action  is  maintainable,  then 
public  officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective 
instruments  with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to  silence 
their  enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of 


[124] 


everyone  who  dares  to  print  or  speak  unfavorably  of  the 
men  in  power. 

The  freedom  of  speech  and  the  press  was,  at  the  very 
inception  of  our  Government,  regarded  as  indispensable  to 
a  free  state.  *  *  * 

\Yliile  good  reason  exists  for  denying  a  publisher  the 
right  to  print  that  which  he  cannot  prove  against  an  individ- 
ual, and  recklessly  to  pry  into  his  personal  affairs,  defaming 
his  character  and  reputation,  no  reason  exists  for  restraining 
the  publication  against  a  municipality  or  other  govern- 
mental agency,  of  such  facts,  which,  as  Judge  Taft  puts  it, 
it  is  well  that  the  public  should  know,  even  if  it  lies  hidden 
from  judicial  investigation. 

The  Chicago  suit  differs  from  previous  suits  of  this 
character  in  that  it  was  brought  in  behalf  of  a  munici- 
pality as  a  whole  as  representing  the  interest  of  citizens 
and  not  by  a  public  official.  The  courts  have  sustained 
the  rights  of  the  press  to  publish  facts  bearing  upon 
official  conduct  and  to  comment  thereon  with  reason 
and  sincerity  and  the  decision  establishes  its  right  to 
criticize  municipalities  and  all  other  governmental  agen- 
cies whenever  in  its  opinion  the  public  welfare  requires  it. 

Judge  Fisher's  able  exposition  of  the  functions  of 
the  press  as  a  public  guardian  and  his  assertion  of  its 
freedom  to  publish  facts  and  express  opinions  concerning 
governmental  policies  and  conditions  and  official  acts  is 
peculiarly  timely  and  valuable  in  view  of  the  efforts 
during  and  since  the  war  to  muzzle  and  control  the 
newspapers.  He  points  out  the  danger  attending  any 
attempt  to  gag  or  intimidate  the  press. 

Columbus  Dispatch,  reprinted  in 

ST.  Louis  (Mo.)  Post-Dispatch,  Oct.  24,  1921. 

Chicago  Tribune's  Libel  Suit 

The  city  of  Chicago,  as  represented  by  the  adminis- 
tration of  Mayor  Thompson,  recently  brought  a  $10,000,- 
000  libel  suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune,  based  on  its 
criticisms  of  the  city  government.  It  was  alleged  that 
these  criticisms  were  hurting  the  credit  of  the  city, 
lowering  the  market  value  of  its  bonds,  keeping  business 
men  from  the  outside  away  from  it,  etc.,  for  all  of  which, 
reparation  was  demanded  in  the  sum  above  mentioned. 
To  this  declaration  in  Judge  Fisher's  court  the  Tribune 


[125] 


entered  a  demurrer,  denying  the  right  of  the  city  to  bring 
suit  for  libel  on  the  basis  of  newspaper  criticism.  This 
demurrer  was  fully  sustained  in  a  decision  rendered 
by  Judge  Fisher  a  few  days  ago.  To  have  done  anything 
less  would  have  been  to  strike  a  deadly  blow  at  the 
legitimate  freedom  of  the  press  in  one  of  its  most  im- 
portant functions — the  searching  out  and  exposure  of 
inefficiency  and  corruption  in  public  office.  Deliberate 
disregard  of  truth  in  this  function  brings  to  the  offending 
newspaper  its  own  punishment  in  loss  of  influence  and 
standing  with  fair-minded  people.  To  prevent  such 
criticism  through  the  machinery  of  legal  prosecution, 
even  though  the  right  to  criticize  be  occasionally  abused, 
would  lay  the  foundation  for  a  dozen  evils  in  an  ineffec- 
tual attempt  to  remove  one. 

MACON  (Mo.)  Chronicle,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

There's  one  part  of  Chicago  Mayor  "Bill"  Thompson 
can't  run.  That's  the  judiciary.  With  his  case  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune  and  The  News  thrown  out  of  court 
and  his  protege,  Governor  Len  Small,  facing  trial  for 
embezzlement,  "Big  Bill"  is  probably  thinking  the  law 
is  the  main  stumbling  block  in  the  way  of  making  this  a 
happy  world. 

MACON  (Mo.)  Chronicle,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

If  men  like  Mayor  Bill  Thompson  of  Chicago  could 
recover  from  newspapers  that  criticized  them  and  their 
administration,  then  newspapers  would  be  of  no  earthly 
use  and  the  municipal  clique  could  run  things  in  their 
own  way.  The  restraint  imposed  by  publicity  keeps 
some  men  apparently  honest. 

SPRINGFIELD  (Mo.)  Leader,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Tribune  Libel  Suit 

The  suit  for  $10,000,000  brought  by  the  city  of  Chicago 
against  The  Chicago  Tribune  for  alleged  libel  was  thrown 
out  of  court  Saturday  by  Circuit  Court  Judge  Harry  M. 
Fisher.  Judge  Fisher  upheld  the  demurrer  filed  by  the 
Tribune  to  the  suit.  The  suit  was  based  on  state- 
ments made  by  the  Tribune  that  the  city  was  bank- 


[126] 


rupt,  which  officials  held   injured  the  financial  status  of 
tin1  city  and  il  was  unable  to  dispose  of  bonds. 

This  shows  how  Hill  Thompson  is  using  the  city  as  a 
personal  plaything.  The  Tribune's  charge  was  a  reflec- 
tion on  Thompson  and  not  on  the  city.  The  city  is  in  a 
bankrupt  condition  as  a  result  of  Thompson's  incom- 
petency.  Thompson,  as  a  result  of  charges  against  him- 
self, puts  the  city  to  the  expense  of  bringing  a  personal 
law  suit  for  himself.  This  alone  gives  some  idea  of  why 
Chicago  is  broke. 

DENVER  (Colo.)  Times,  Oct.  19,  1921. 

Off  the  Pedestal 

Thin-skinned  office  holders  have  seldom  been  led 
into  a  more  ridiculous  predicament  thru  "injured  pride," 
whatever  that  may  be,  than  the  administration  of  the 
city  of  Chicago  in  seeking  to  obtain  $10,000,000  in 
damages  from  two  newspapers  for  alleged  libel  against 
the  municipal  corporation. 

The  action  was  strictly  on  a  par  with  the  "divine  right 
of  kings"  theory  enunciated  by  Governor  Small,  also 
of  Illinois,  when  he  tried  to  escape  arrest  last  summer 
and  invoked  an  archaic  argument  for  which  the  American 
public  had  only  hoots  and  derision. 

Last  week  a  Chicago  judge  sustained  the  demurrer 
of  the  newspapers  involved  in  the  damage  suit  and  dis- 
missed the  action  against  them  as  being  "not  in  har- 
mony with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institu- 
tions." 

The  outcome  was  inevitable  and  the  suit  served  merely 
as  a  temporary  vehicle  for  official  spleen  against  the 
defendants.  It  revealed  the  fact  that  some  lawyers 
are  quite  without  a  sense  of  humor  and  are  not  unwilling 
to  appear  foolish  if  only  the  consideration  is  adequate. 

For  an  American  city  the  action  of  Chicago  was  indeed 
a  strange  precedent.  To  allege  libel  for  criticism  of  its 
acts  as  a  corporate  body  was  bad  enough,  but  to  seek 
redress  under  the  common  law  of  England  was  to  invite 
public  hilarity.  Had  the  city's  suit  been  sustained, 
doubtless  its  next  act  when  under  fire  would  have  been 
to  claim  the  protection  of  King  George. 


[127] 


The  one  redeeming  feature  of  the  farce  was  the  fact 
that  Chicago  has  enough  shame  to  feel  hurt  at  anything 
that  might  be  said  about  her  in  an  official  capacity. 
This  is  a  sign  of  regeneration.  The  public  is  more  or 
less  reassured  to  know  that  her  feelings  have  been  hurt 
$10,000,000  worth.  Everything  is  up  these  days,  even 
the  value  of  rasped  municipal  sensibilities.  No  doubt 
the  newspapers  will  evince  a  more  tender  attitude  in  the 
future,  so  that  the  object  of  their  unkind  remarks  may 
not  die  of  humiliation. 

We  can  imagine  what  would  have  happened  to  the 
newspapers  of  the  United  States  had  shrinking  Chicago 
won  her  slander  suit.  Every  mayor  in  the  country 
would  have  ordered  his  city  attorney  to  start  proceedings 
at  once  against  the  bete  noir  of  the  administration.  Free 
speech  would  have  been  litigated  to  death.  What 
wouldn't  city  hall  in  Denver  have  done  to  us !  Oh,  boy ! 

Judge  Fisher,  who  opined  that  we  have  enough  law 
over  here  without  bringing  over  any  more  of  the  old 
English  common  or  garden  variety  and  Judge  Smith, 
who  last  summer  gave  a  judicial  pin  prick  to  the  bubble 
of  the  divine  right  of  kings  fallacy,  have  both  done  the 
public  a  good  turn.  It  will  be  a  sorry  day  for  this  nation 
when  its  newspapers  are  muzzled  and  any  unit  of  govern- 
ment may  set  itself  up  on  a  gilded  pedestal  and  announce 
that  it  is  above  honest  criticism. 

TRINIDAD  (Colo.)  Chronicle,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

Chicago  Tribune  vs.  City 

Among  many  recent  cases  of  individuals  or  corpora- 
tions trying  ineffectually  to  recover  from  newspapers 
for  alleged  damage  caused  by  an  endeavor  to  protect 
the  common  good,  or  for  publication  of  news  items 
affecting  them,  that  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  is  pre- 
eminent because  of  the  peculiar  features  of  the  case. 

Here  was  a  strongly  intrenched  political  machine 
charged  with  dissipating  the  public  funds  by  a  newspaper, 
in  its  undoubted  province  of  watching  and  conserving 
the  rights  of  the  public,  in  an  attitude  that  had  many 
indications  of  revengeful  spite. 

In  sustaining  the  demurrer  and  dismissing  the  suit  the 
judge  gave  utterance  to  an  axiomatic  truth  when  he  said 


[128] 


that  harm   would  certainly  result  to  a  community  from 
an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of  publicity. 

During  the  war  I  lie  newspapers  of  the  country  were 
a  unit  in  supporting  the  propaganda  of  Americans. 
Propaganda  may  have  become  a  habit  with  some  of  them 
and  reached  into  other  fields  without  warrant.  For  in 
such  eases  there  is  a  remedy,  but  that  is  entirely  a  different 
matter  from  restraining  rightful  expression  of  opinion. 

The  freedom  of  the  press  is  so  important  a  fundamental 
of  democracy  that  it  was  written  in  one  of  the  greatest 
safeguards  of  liberty — the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

It  is  a  matter  of  felicitation,  not  only  among  news- 
papers, but  among  all  citizens  of  the  country,  that 
efforts  so  far  to  undermine  the  right  of  free  speech  have 
been  fruitless. 

AVithout  an  absolutely  free  press,  free  to  record  news 
in  an  impartial  manner,  and  free  to  safeguard  every 
interest  of  community  and  country,  to  fearlessly  uphold 
the  powerless  against  the  powerful,  with  the  power  to 
collate  and  give  united  force  to  public  opinion,  all  the 
words  of  the  founders  and  preservers  of  the  Nation 
would  go  for  naught. 

Especially  must  the  press  be  safeguarded  against  the 
encroachment  of  political  organizations,  which,  pri- 
marily, are  promoted  by  selfish  interests. 

Both    the    press    and    those    who    would    restrict    its 
province  must  finally  stand  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion— 
the  supreme  court  of  their  actions. 

The  press  is  unafraid ! 

STOCKTON  (Cal.)  Independent,  Nov.  3,  1921. 

Press  and  Government 

Popular  rights  and  political  efficiency  are  both  upheld 
by  the  decision  of  a  Chicago  judge,  throwing  out  of  court 
the  $10,000,000  suit  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune 
by  the  mayor  of  the  city.  The  action  was  inspired  by 
criticism  of  the  mayor.  Though  drastic,  the  court 
held  that  such  criticism  was  a  legitimate  function  of  a 
free  press — a  verdict  in  which  public  opinion  will  probably 
concur,  regardless  of  the  character  of  the  litigants  them- 
selves. 


[129] 


The  need  of  freedom  in  printing  news  and  commenting 
on  it  becomes  greater  as  communities  grow  and  public 
business,  like  all  other  business,  becomes  more  complex. 
The  newspaper  is  a  sort  of  responsible  middleman 
between  the  public  and  its  officials,  representing  their 
acts  and  holding  them  to  strict  account.  It  is  a  great 
power  which  the  newspaper  wields,  but  there  is  little 
danger  of  its  being  abused  more  than  momentarily. 
Its  work  is  all  public,  and  so  the  public  itself  is  in  position 
at  all  times  to  hold  it  to  its  duty,  prospering  it  by  support 
or  destroying  it  by  disapproval. 

The  press  has  become,  therefore,  a  powerful  though 
unofficial  organ  of  government.  Intelligent  popular 
government  would  be  impossible  without  it.  Continuous 
progress  in  government  is  possible  mainly  because,  while 
public  servants  come  and  go,  the  press  is  permanent,  for- 
ever on  the  job  of  public  service,  translating  public  will 
into  public  action. 

NOGALES  (Ariz.)  Herald,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

The  Freedom  of  the  Press 

The  Chicago  Tribune  is  being  sued  for  $10,000,000  by 
the  City  of  Chicago  for  libel.  The  Herald  understands 
that  the  officials  of  the  city,  swayed  by  partisan  politics, 
maintain  that  the  Tribune  injured  the  credit  of  the  city 
and  made  it  impossible  to  dispose  of  bonds  necessary  to 
the  welfare  of  Chicago. 

Every  newspaper  in  the  nation  is  interested  in  the 
outcome  of  the  big  suit.  Never  before  in  the  history  of 
American  courts  has  a  similar  case  been  tried. 

The  suit  is  a  deep  thrust  at  a  free  press.  In  the  opinion 
of  The  Herald  it  is  an  attempt  of  partisan  politics  to 
muzzle  the  voice  of  all  opposition. 

If  the  City  of-  Chicago  is  really  afraid  of  publicity  then 
why  did  it  bring  the  suit?  The  Tribune  publicity  localized 
the  matter.  The  suit  has  made  it  a  national  affair.  The 
city  government  of  Chicago  is  far  more  responsible  for 
widespread  publicity  than  The  Tribune. 

All  of  the  grandiloquent  bluff  and  bluster  of  Chicago, 
all  of  its  spouting  and  ostentatious  rag-chewing  cannot 
prevent  the  plucky  press  from  speaking  as  it  should.  All 
the  protests  and  crocodile  tears  of  all  the  politicians  in 


[130] 


Chicago  cannot  down  the  pen  which  is  wielded  to  expose 
graft  and  corruption. 

Chicago  had  a  black  eye  before  the  Tribune  began  to 
fight  the  city  government.  It  is  known  far  and  wide 
that  the  controlling  politicians  of  the  Windy  City 
punished  with  fiendish  ferocity  those  who  refused  to  bow 
to  thrir  shrine.  Ward-heelers  and  soap  box  orators  have 
had  their  day  in  Chicago  and  an  electric  wave  of  joy 
swept  around  the  State  of  Illinois  when  the  plucky 
Tribune  began  its  "spotlight"  campaign.  The  Tribune 
and  the  Chicago  Daily  News  did  not  dance  to  the  music 
of  the  crowned  creatures  of  Chicago. 

The  suit  for  $10,000,000  against  the  Tribune,  if  won, 
will  smash  that  great  newspaper.  It  will  mean  that  no 
more  can  the  press  voice  complaint  to  the  people  against 
a  government,  whether  it  be  city,  county  or  state.  It 
will  mean  that  the  star  of  city  government  can  be  shifted 
to  suit  the  pleasure  of  politicians. 

It  must  not  be! 


PHOENIX  (Ariz.)  Gazette,  Oct.  29,  1921. 

Freedom  of  Speech  and  Press 

In  his  decision  sustaining  the  demurrer  of  The  Chicago 
Tribune  to  the  $10,000,000  libel  suit  brought  by  Mayor 
Thompson  and  certain  other  officials  of  the  city  of 
Chicago,  Judge  Fisher,  of  the  Circuit  court  of  that  city, 
has  struck  a  decisive  blow  for  real  Americanism  through 
freedom  of  speech  and  freedom  of  the  press. 

Stripped  of  confusing  details,  the  libel  suit  was  filed 
against  the  Tribune  in  the  name  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
because  that  newspaper  had  attacked  the  mayor  and  city 
officials,  charging  that  their  administration  had  bank- 
rupted the  city. 

Conceiving  that  they  would  be  able,  at  one  blow,  to 
vindicate  themselves  and  punish  the  newspaper  which 
had  the  temerity  to  prefer  charges  against  them,  the 
mayor  and  his  associates  brought  the  suit  for  the  stagger- 
ing sum  which,  if  they  were  successful  in  their  fight,  would 
have  resulted  in  the  crushing  of  the  Tribune  out  of 
existence.  But  Judge  Fisher  was  not  to  be  led  astray 
from  the  real  issue,  the  attempt  to  fasten  a  muzzle  upon 


[131] 


the  press,  and  with  wonderful  directness  cut  straight  to 
the  heart  of  the  matter.    This  is  what  he  said: 

Stripped  of  all  the  elaborate  argument,  in  the  confusion 
of  which  the  question  for  decision  might  look  difficult,  the 
fact  remains  that  if  this  action  is  maintainable  then  public 
officials  have  in  their  power  one  of  the  most  effective  instru- 
ments with  which  to  intimidate  the  press  and  to  silence  their 
enemies.  It  is  a  weapon  to  be  held  over  the  head  of  every- 
one who  dares  to  speak  or  print  unfavorably  of  the  men  in 
power. 

Continuing  in  this  strain  Judge  Fisher  pointed  out  that 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  was  regarded  as 
indisputable  to  a  free  state  at  the  very  inception  of  the 
American  government.  And  in  this  he  unquestionably 
puts  his  finger  upon  the  heart  of  the  whole  matter. 
Americans  today  need  definite  knowledge  as  to  the  things 
making  up  our  complicated  and  involved  social  organiza- 
tion, and  it  is  the  sacred  duty  and  function  of  the  news- 
papers, which  are  expert  in  the  collecting  and 
disseminating  of  such  information,  to  keep  the  people 
informed  as  otherwise  the  public  would  be  utterly  help- 
less. Going  deeper  into  this  phase  of  the  matter  Judge 
Fisher  said: 

The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world,  and, 
to  a  great  extent,  humanity  in  contact  with  all  its  parts. 
It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the 
suffering.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials 
and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power 
to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  unifies 
public  sentiment.  But  for  it,  the  acts  of  public  benefactors 
would  go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undismayed 
and  public  office  would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupu- 
lous demagogue. 

The  Gazette  knows  full  well  that  neither  Judge  Fisher 
nor  any  other  honorable  judge  in  the  courts  of  justice  of 
these  United  States  would  have  any  more  sympathy  with 
newspapers  which  indulge  in  scandals  and  defamations 
than  is  possessed  by  the  bitterest  and  most  vicious 
assailants  of  the  press.  Neither  has  this  paper  any 
patience  with  such  publications  or  such  policies.  There 
can  be  no  excuse  or  extenuation  of  conduct  of  this  sort. 
Yet  the  Gazette  firmly  holds  to  the  contention  that  the 
remedy  for  such  a  course  is  not  to  be  found  in  a  new  law 
which  would  suppress  publication. 


[132] 


Nobody  has  a  right  to  mistake  freedom  for  license,  of 
course,  and  the  laws  protecting  the  individual  from  libel 
are  clearly  defined  and  easily  to  be  understood.  Further, 
the  Gazette  holds  that  they  should  be  rigidly  observed 
by  every  self-respecting  newspaper. 

It  would,  however,  be  absurd  if  the  law  of  the  land 
were  so  interpreted  by  the  courts  as  to  protect  the 
unscrupulous  public  official  from  exposure  through  the 
columns  of  the  press,  and  this  paper,  for  one,  is  glad  to 
know  that  free  speech  and  free  press  continue  as  bulwarks 
of  the  constitutional  liberty  and  freedom  of  the  American 
people. 


[  133  ] 


AMARILLO  (Tex.)  Tribune,  Sept.  29,  1921. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  Suit 

The  suit  of  the  City  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  for 
ten  million  dollars  damages,  if  successful,  will  mean  the 
death  of  the  Tribune,  because  a  judgment  of  that  size 
could  be  satisfied  only  by  sacrificing  the  newspaper. 

The  suit  is  said  to  have  grown  out  of  criticisms  of  the 
city  administration  published  by  the  Tribune,  charging 
extravagance  and  waste  in  the  expenditure  of  public 
money.  It  would  be  impossible  to  judge  the  merits  of 
the  controversy  at  this  distance,  but  it  may  be  assumed 
that  no  jury  will  be  found  that  will  give  the  City  the  judg- 
ment asked  for,  even  though  the  newspaper  may  have 
overstepped  the  facts  in  its  published  criticisms.  If 
this  is  true,  it  is  quite  likely  that  the  suit  was  brought 
for  political  reasons. 

But  if  the  City  should  win  its  suit  a  serious  blow  will 
have  been  dealt  to  the  freedom  of  the  press.  Newspapers 
with  the  courage  to  denounce  extravagance  and  graft  in 
high  places  are  none  too  numerous  and  the  elimination 
of  a  powerful  paper  like  The  Chicago  Tribune  would  be 
held  up  as  a  warning  against  published  criticisms  of 
public  officials. 

Freedom  of  the  press  is  essential  in  a  democracy.  The 
people  are  quite  as  conscious  of  this  fact  as  are  the  pub- 
lishers of  newspapers  and  they  can  be  counted  on  to 
resist  any  abridgment  of  this  right.  Honest  officials 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  honest  criticism  and  no  news- 
paper can  long  survive  unless  it  sticks  to  the  truth. 

DALLAS  (Tex.)  Morning  News,  Sept.  29,  1921. 

Chicago  Turns  Plaintiff 

The  city  of  Chicago  is  suing  a  pair  of  newspapers  for 
printing  the  statement  that  Chicago  is  bankrupt.  It  is 
claimed  that  the  city's  financial  arrangements  were  em- 
barrassed by  the  statement,  and  damages  running  up  into 
the  millions  are  asked.  Technically  speaking,  it  prob- 
ably couldn't  be  true  that  Chicago  is  a  bankrupt.  At 
least  the  city  hasn't  gone  into  Federal  or  State  courts 
and  submitted  to  genuine  bankruptcy  proceedings.  It 


[134] 


is  probably  a  fact  also  that  Chicago  is  not  insolvent,  so 
long  as  its  taxing  power  remains.  Indeed,  courts  have 
been  known  to  compel  a  debtor  municipality  to  levy  a  tax 
commensurate  with  its  obligations. 

These  considerations  may  all  have  been  known  to  the 
newspapers  who  made  or  circulated  the  statement  that 
Chicago  is  bankrupt.  But  so  must  they  have  been  known 
to  every  intelligent  person  who  read  these  alleged  state- 
ments. In  fact  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  they 
could  be  read  without  being  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
these  considerations.  In  view  of  this  aspect  it  may  turn 
out  that,  even  in  case  of  a  verdict  against  the  defendant 
newspapers,  the  award  would  be  nearer  the  price  of  a 
soda  fountain  drink  than  of  a  battleship. 

The  actual  damage  done  to  Chicago  can  scarcely  have 
been  anywhere  near  the  amount  claimed.  The  suit, 
therefore,  wears  the  guise  of  an  attempt  to  discipline 
newspapers  either  for  a  misstatement  which  can  not  have 
hurt  the  city  greatly  with  those  who  dealt  with  Chicago 
on  its  credit,  or  else  for  a  loosely  worded  statement  of 
criticism  aimed  at  the  administration  of  Chicago's  gov- 
ernment. Manifestly,  if  Chicago  is  going  to  sue  in  her 
corporate  capacity  every  paper  that  ever  published  any- 
thing derogatory  to  William  Hale  Thompson  and  his 
management  of  finances  and  affairs,  there's  going  to  be 
a  long  litigation  calendar  ahead. 

Probably  there  is  not  a  city  in  America  where  a  strong 
and  vigilant  and  critical  political  opposition  is  more 
needed  than  in  Chicago.  If  that  great  city,  with  the 
maze  of  corruption  and  blatant  vice  with  which  its  very 
name  is  associated  over  the  country,  is  ever  to  regain 
a  reputation  which  will  be  an  asset  to  it  morally  and 
financially,  the  redemption  will  never  come  through 
muzzling  or  disciplining  outspoken  critics  of  the  city 
administration. 

From  the  Brooklyn  Eagle,  reprinted  in 
FT.  WORTH  (Tex.)  Record,  Oct.  9,  1921. 

Chicago  as  a  municipality  has  brought  two  $10,000,000 
suits,  against  the  Chicago  News  and  The  Chicago  Tribune, 
respectively,  for  libel  damages.  The  assertion  is  made  that 
attacks  on  the  financial  administration  of  the  civic  cor- 
poration's affairs  under  Mayor  Thompson  damaged  the 


[  135  ] 


credit  of  the  city,  which  is  entitled  to  recover.  So  far  as  we 
know,  this  is  an  utterly  unprecedented  proceeding  and  is 
of  course  dictated  by  the  mayor.  No  such  action  could 
be  prosecuted  in  New  York  state,  and  it  is  almost  a  safe 
prediction  that  the  suit  will  be  thrown  out  by  the  courts 
of  Illinois.  A  city  has  such  powers  as  have  been  granted 
to  it  by  state  lawmakers.  The  power  to  bring  libel  suits 
is  not  included  in  any  state  of  the  union  in  city  charters. 
For  this  there  are  excellent  reasons.  First,  the  freedom 
of  criticism  of  city  administration  is  a  right  of  all  tax- 
payers. Second,  if  the  politicians  mismanaging  a  muni- 
cipality could  sue  critics  not  at  their  own  expense  but 
at  the  expense  of  the  treasury,  prosecution  would  be 
not  merely  possible  but  probable. 


FT.  WORTH  (Tex.)  Record,  Oct.  21, 

Victory  for  Taxpayers 

Not  only  the  freedom  of  the  press  but  the  rights  of  the 
public  in  a  very  large  way,  the  right  of  the  taxpayer  to 
know  all  facts  of  record  that  show  how  public  affairs 
are  handled,  were  involved  in  the  suits  brought  against 
The  Chicago  Tribune  and  the  Chicago  Daily  News  by  the 
city  of  Chicago.  These  suits  were  for  $10,000,000  each, 
the  charge  being  that  the  newspapers  had  libeled  the 
city  and  harmed  its  credit  so  it  could  no  longer  find  ready 
sale  for  its  bonds.  While  the  city  of  Chicago  was  named 
as  the  plaintiff  in  the  suit,  the  moving  spirit  in  the  liti- 
gation was  William  Hale  Thompson,  mayor  of  Chicago, 
whose  methods  of  handling  municipal  affairs,  had  been 
criticized  in  a  vigorous  fashion  by  the  newspapers.  It 
was  a  novel  suit,  probably  the  first  of  its  kind :  the  amount 
named  was  the  approximate  value  of  the  papers.  It  had 
importance  so  far-reaching  that  it  contemplated  a  new 
order  for  this  country. 

Recently  when  the  suit  came  up  for  hearing,  brilliant 
lawyers  appeared  for  each  side.  The  Tribune  suit  came 
up  first.  Its  attorneys  had  filed  a  demurrer  to  the  peti- 
tion. In  a  general  way  the  filing  of  a  demurrer  means 
that,  even  if  all  facts  alleged  in  the  bill  of  complaint  be 
true  as  stated,  they  would  not  constitute  a  cause  of 
action.  It  raised  the  full  question  of  whether  the  plaintiff 
is  in  court  with  a  valid  cause  or  not.  The  court  sustained 

[18«  3 


the  demurrer,  saying  I  ha  I  all  (he  facts  stated  in  the  very 
lengthy  bill  of  complaint  did  not  state  a  cause  of  action 
for  a  suit  in  court. 

Then  the  court  went  further,  declaring  the  suit  was 
not  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  Rather  it 
recalled  the  days  of  monarchical  and  despotic  rule  The 
Tribune  had  printed  facts  from  (he  records  of  the  city, 
had  (old  (he  truth  of  city  management,  albeit  with  some 
vigor  and  persistence.  Had  the  Tribune  and  the  News 
lost  their  suits  they  would  have  been  bankrupted  and  put 
out  of  business,  and  other  papers  would  have  had  their 
existence  threatened  if  they  offended  the  temporary 
occupant  of  the  city  hall.  The  existence  of  a  free  press 
was  at  stake.  Newspapers  may  have  their  faults.  They 
are  but  the  product  of  human  hand  and  brain,  but  for 
any  court  to  have  said  that  newspapers  could  not  tell 
the  story  of  a  city  misgoverned  and  mismanaged  would 
have  been  to  turn  government  over  to  exploiters  and  gag 
those  who  would  keep  the  public  informed.  The  defeat 
of  Thompson  is  a  triumph  of  public  right. 

BEAUMONT  (Tex.)  Enterprise,  Oct.  16,  1921. 

A  Lost  Libel  Suit 

A  Chicago  judge  Saturday  dismissed  the  suits  of  the 
city  of  Chicago  against  the  Tribune  and  Daily  News  seek- 
ing punitive  damages  for  libel  in  the  sum  of  $10,000,000 
in  each  case.  The  city  had,  the  court  held,  no  cause  of 
action.  The  suits  had  been  brought  because  of  publica- 
tion in  the  two  papers  of  matter  alleged  to  have  injured 
the  city's  credit,  but  were  in  reality  the  outgrowth  of  the 
fight  against  Mayor  William  Hale  Thompson. 

In  refusing  to  allow  the  petitions  to  be  amended  the 
court  held  that  the  English  common  law  limiting  the 
freedom  of  the  press  had  not  come  down  to  America 
as  a  legal  standard,  and  that  the  suits  in  point  were  not 
"in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our 
institutions." 

Determination  of  these  cases  will  be  of  interest  to 
newspapers  everywhere,  as  well  as  to  the  people  who  per- 
ceive in  an  untrammeled  press  the  best  safeguard  for  the 
liberties  of  the  citizen. 


t  137  ] 


LAREDO  (Tex.)  Times,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

An  Important  Decision 

Some  time  ago  the  city  of  Chicago  filed  a  suit  for 
$10,000,000  damages  against  The  Chicago  Tribune, 
charging  libel.  It  seems  that  the  administration  con- 
sidered articles  concerning  the  city  management  as 
damaging  to  the  character  of  the  officials  and  the  suit 
was  instituted,  the  amount  claimed  being  based  on  the 
amount  of  the  fortune  of  the  proprietor  of  the  Tribune 
rather  than  on  actual  damages. 

Judge  Fisher  the  other  day  sustained  the  Tribune's 

demurrer  to  the  suit  and  refused  to  permit  the  city  to 

/  /  amend   its  petition.     In   rendering  his  decision  he  said 

/  ll  that  portions  of  the  English  common  law  and  statutes 

\v  which  restricted  the  liberty  of  the  press  had  not  been 

inherited  by  this  country  and  added:     "This  action  is 

not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our 

institutions." 

The  principle  upon  which  a  municipality  bases  its 
right  to  demand  redress  for  hostile  criticism  is  the  same 
as  that  upon  which  is  founded  the  doctrine  of  lese  majesty. 
It  is  opposed  to  our  free  institutions,  because  the  govern- 
ments are  the  creature  of  the  people  and  do  not  exist  by 
divine  right. 

Our  declaration  of  independence  says:  "Governments 
are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed,"  and  upon  this  declar- 
ation was  formed  our  constitution,  the  first  constitution 
of  a  free  people  to  be  committed  to  writing. 

No  government  is  above  criticism,  and  particularly 
not  our  government,  which  is  created  by  the  vote  of  the 
people,  who  have  a  right  to  elect  another  government  in 
its  place  whenever  they  may  see  fit. 

Above  all  is  the  federal  government,  which  is  formed 
by  the  union  of  the  states;  then  comes  the  state  govern- 
ment, and  then  the  town  or  municipal  government,  the 
charter  for  which  political  entity  is  granted  by  the  state, 
in  conformity  with  laws  enacted  by  the  representatives 
of  the  people. 

This  is  the  first  time  a  municipality  has  attempted  to 
sue  a  publisher  for  utterances  considered  libelous,  and 
the  decision  of  the  court  is  far-reaching  in  its  effect.  It 

[138] 


establishes  thai  the  city  administration  has  no  right  to 
sue  for  libel  as  an  entity,  however  any  of  the  individuals 
in  the  administration  may  be  aggrieved  personally. 

There  have  been  severe  criticisms  of  the  Chicago 
city  administration,  not  all  of  them  confined  to  the 
Chicago  papers.  Perhaps  no  mayor  of  Chicago  has  ever 
received  the  adverse  criticism  directed  against  William 
Hale  Thompson,  not  even  Carter  Harrison  in  the  balmy 
days  of  his  rule,  when  Bathhouse  John  and  Hinky  Dink 
were  at  their  zenith. 

But  if  Mayor  Thompson  is  aggrieved  he  has  the  right 
to  bring  an  individual  suit  against  any  person  or  corpora- 
tion, and  the  attempt  to  use  the  prestige  of  the  city 
government  to  back  the  petition  in  the  present  case  was 
of  no  avail. 

Much  of  our  law  is  based  on  the  English  common  law 
and  on  statutes  of  ages  past  and  gone.  But  any  part  of 
common  law  which  relates  to  the  monarchy  or  a  privileged 
class  necessarily  must  fail  when  translated  to  our  code, 
for  it  is  based  upon  something  which  we  do  not  recog- 
nize— the  superiority  of  one  person  or  class  to  the  rest  of 
the  people,  and  no  government  is  above  the  law,  any  more 
than  a  person. 

The  trial  of  the  governor  of  Illinois  is  another  case  in 
point  in  which  the  old  English  common  law  was  invoked 
in  the  attempt  to  base  a  defense  not  permissible  under 
our  law.  "The  king  can  do  no  wrong,"  says  the  old 
English  law,  while  here  every  man  is  a  sovereign  and  has 
equal  rights  with  another. 

Our  public  domain  is  held  in  the  name  of  the  people, 
our  prosecutions  are  brought  in  the  name  of  the  state 
or  the  commonwealth,  and  it  would  seem  strange  for  an 
American  to  be  told  that  the  municipal  government 
claimed  the  powers  of  a  sovereign  in  claiming  to  be  above 
adverse  criticism  on  the  part  of  any  of  the  people. 

SAN  ANTONIO  (Tex.)  Express,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Incalculable  Harm  to  the  Community 

"This  action  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  and 
objects  of  our  institutions.  *  *  *  The  newspaper  cannot 
long  indulge  in  falsehoods  without  losing  that  confidence  from 
which  alone  come  its  power,  its  prestige  and  its  reward. 


[139] 


On  the  other  hand,  the  harm  which  would  certainly  result  to 
the  community  from  an  officialdom  unrestrained  by  fear  of 
publicity  is  incalculable." 

Thus  Judge  Harry  Fisher,  in  sustaining  The  Chicago 
Tribune's  demurrer  to  the  "City  of  Chicago"  (vide  the 
works  of  "Big  Bill"  Thompson)  "libel"  suit  for 
$10,000,000,  on  the  allegation  that  the  Tribune  (and  the 
Daily  News)  have  printed  "false  statements"  regarding 
Chicago's  financial  standing  and  thereby  "injured"  the 
municipality's  "credit." 

The  court's  decision  is  that  the  "City"  has  no  cause  of 
action;  that  it  is  a  public  corporation,  not  a  private 
person  susceptible  to  defamation;  and  that  the  "City" 
cannot  amend  its  petition  in  the  suit. 

Common  sense  raised  the  expectation  of  that  decision. 
As  to  the  history,  the  theory  and  the  law  of  the  rights 
involved — constitutional  and  statutory — Judge  Fisher's 
exposition  "hath  been  most  sound."  Nevertheless,  one 
who  considers  the  City  Hall  and  other  municipal  causes 
of  what  the  Tribune,  the  Daily  News  and  other  local 
newspapers  are  impelled  to  say,  day  after  day,  about  the 
municipality's  conduct,  as  well  as  "credit,"  must  wonder 
whether  Chicago's  officialdom  of  the  Thompson-Lundin 
ring  is  at  all  "restrained  by  fear  of  publicity." 

For  one  of  many  examples  of  "credit,"  it  was  neither 
the  Tribune  nor  the  Daily  News,  but  Thompson's  own 
chief  of  police,  who  lately  announced  that  half  his  force 
were  either  criminals — bootleggers — or  in  league  with  this 
criminal  element! 

Howbeit,  Heaven  help  Chicago — even  more — were  its 
press  inoculated  with  tetanus  germs,  per  such  a  "libel" 
suit!  Its  reformative  struggle — quite  in  accord  with 
"the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions"-— will 
go  on.  The  press  is  doing  splendid  service  to  the  com- 
munity in  thus  preparing  it  for  the  next  municipal 
election. 

GALVESTON  (Tex.)  Tribune,  Oct.  20,  1921. 

Judge  Fisher  of  Chicago  has  no  doubt  robbed  his  city 
of  the  damages  the  municipality  would  have  received  in 
its  suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune.  Had  the  case 
gone  to  a  jury  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  verdict  would 
have  been  for  at  least  one  cent  damage. 


[140] 


There  is  much  in  contention  of  The  Chicago  Trib- 
une's attorney  in  I  he  $10,000, 000  libel  suit  filed  against 
that  paper  by  the  Chicago  city  government  thata  victory 
for  (he  city  would  mean  I  he  muzzling  of  the  press  insofar 
as  criticism  of  city  officials  goes,  for  the  whole  suit,  \yhich 
was  engineered  and  filed  by  Mayor  William  Hale  Thomp- 
son, is  predicated  upon  the  fact  that  the  Tribune's  anim- 
adversions against  the  financial  condition  of  Chicago  were 
really  aimed  at  the  administration  of  Thompson — whose 
administration  has  not  been  such  as  to  engender  any 
great  amount  of  pride  among  the  best  citizenship  of  the 
Western  metropolis.  So  far  as  the  record  published 
shows,  there  has  been  no  evidence  introduced  to  dispute 
the  Tribune's  charge,  to-wit,  that  the  city  was  "broke," 
its  income  frittered  away  in  more  or  less  spectacular 
stunts  and  in  taking  care  of  the  Mayor's  political -sup- 
porters. The  contention  of  the  city  seems  largely  to  be 
that  but  in  charging  the  city  was  embarrassed  financially 
the  Tribune  harmed  the  city's  credit  and  made  it  im- 
possible to  sell  its  bonds — a  contention  that  is  certainly 
far-fetched  since  with  the  taxing  power  in  hand  and 
billions  of  property  subject  to  taxation,  there  could  not 
possibly  be  any  question  as  to  the  city's  solvency  so  far 
as  bond-holders  go  nor  of  the  city's  ability  financially 
further  to  tax  its  citizens  to  raise  the  money  for  interest 
and  sinking  fund.  Mayor  Thompson,  opposed  by  practi- 
cally every  paper  in  Chicago,  has  long  sought  some  way 
to  "get  back  at  them"  for  their  opposition.  Evidently 
he  believes  that  in  his  little  $10,000,000  libel  suit  against 
the  Tribune — a  similar  amount,  we  believe,  is  sought  from 
the  Chicago  News — he  has  found  the  way.  The  defense's 
demurrer  should  be  upheld,  because  if  city  officials  and 
city  administrations  can  be  put  above  criticism  by  news- 
papers it  will  be  a  sad  day  for  the  taxpayers  of  every 
city  in  the  country. 

KNOXVILLE  (Terni.)  Journal-Tribune,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

A  City  Not  Libeled 

Not  long  ago,  "Big  Bill"  Thompson,  mayor  of  Chicago, 
brought  suit  against  two  of  Chicago's  le'ading  daily  pa- 
pers, for  ten  millions  of  dollars  alleged  damage  to  the 
city  due  to  what  the  papers  had  printed. 


[141] 


The  facts  are,  the  papers  did  severely  criticise  "Big 
Bill's"  management  of  the  city's  affairs,  or,  more  prop- 
erly speaking,  mismanagement.  And  it  is  only  natural 
for  him  to  thus  assume,  as  he  has  persuaded  himself,  he 
is  the  city  of  Chicago,  all  alone  by  himself.  One  of  his 
calibre  is  capable  of  imagining  vain  things. 

But  the  judge  before  whom  the  case  would  have  been 
tried,  had  it  come  to  a  trial,  did  not  share  the  views  of 
the  complainant  in  the  case.  He  held  that  the  articles 
printed  in  The  Chicago  Tribune  were  neither  seditious 
nor  libelous.  Judge  Fisher  held  that  libel  is  applicable 
only  to  private  persons  or  corporations,  and  that  the 
city  might  not  sue  for  libel  "unless  by  some  legal  fiction  the 
plaintiff  is  to  be  regarded  for  the  purpose  of  this  suit  as 
a  private  person,  in  which  event  the  publications  are 
defamatory  and  libelous  would  lie." 

Had  the  judge  stopped  with  that  and  gone  no  further, 
that  of  itself  would  have  been  sufficient  to  knock  "Big 
Bill"  out  of  the  box,  but  as  if  insult  added  to  injury, 
assuming  that  such  a  man  is  capable  of  either  insult  or 
injury,  the  judge  didn't  stop  with  that,  he  went  on  fur- 
ther and  spoke  words  of  praise  of  the  press  that  indulges 
in  criticism  of  public  officials.  And  the  judge  proceeded 
to  further  say: 

"This  suit  is  not  in  sympathy  with  the  genius,  spirit 
and  object  of  our  institutions.  It  fits  rather  with  the 
genius  of  rulers  who  conceived  law  not  in  the  purity  of 
love  for  justice,  but  in  the  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed 
power." 

If  "Big  Bill"  or  any  to  be  found  anywhere,  can  derive 
comfort  or  solace  from  anything  found  in  the  ruling  of 
this  judge,  let  them  have  all  the  comfort  they  can  get 
out  of  it. 

MEMPHIS  (Tenn.)  News- Scimitar,  Oct.  24,  1921. 

Trivial  Lawsuits 

Declaring  that  Mayor  Thompson's  $10,000,000  libel 
suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  was  not  in  harmony 
with  the  genius,  spirit  and  objects  of  our  institutions, 
Judge  Fisher  of  the  Circuit  court  last  week  sustained  the 
demurrer  of  the  defendant  and  consigned  the  case  to  the 
ash  can. 


[142] 


A  few  more  decisions  of  this  nature  would  have  a 
wholesome  effect,  not  only  upon  officials  who  make  a 
practice  of  suing  when  they  are  exposed,  but  also  upon 
lawyers  who  make  a  practice  of  reading  the  newspapers 
for  some  unintentional  error  upon  which  to  base  a  libel 
suit. 

It  was  never  intended  that  the  libel  laws  should  pre- 
vent a  journal  from  printing  the  news  or  exposing  a 
corrupt  official.  It  was  not  intended  that  a  newspaper 
should  be  penalized  for  an  unintentional  error,  which  it 
is  always  anxious  to  correct  and  usually  is  quick  to  do  so. 

"The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  the  ears  of  the 
world,  and  to  a  great  extent  its  voice,"  as  the  judge  stated 
in  the  outset  of  his  opinion  dismissing  the  suit.  Con- 
tinuing his  description  of  the  function  of  a  newspaper, 
Judge  Fisher  declared: 

"It  is  the  substance  which  puts  humanity  in  contact 
with  all  its  parts.  It  is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and 
the  appeal  of  the  suffering.  It  tears  us  away  from  our 
selfishness  and  moves  us  to  acts  of  kindness  and  charity. 
It  is  the  advocate  constantly  pleading  before  the  bar 
of  public  opinion.  It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of 
our  officials  and  of  those  men  in  high  places  who  have  it 
in  their  power  to  advance  peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is 
the  force  which  unifies  public  sentiment.  Trade  and 
commerce  depend  upon  it.  Authors,  artists,  musicians, 
scholars  and  inventors  command  a  hearing  through  its 
columns.  In  politics  it  is  our  universal  forum.  But  for 
it,  the  acts  of  public  benefactors  would  go  unnoticed, 
impostors  would  continue  undismayed,  and  public  office 
would  be  the  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupulous  dema- 
gogue. Knowledge  of  public  matters  would  be  hidden 
in  the  bosoms  of  those  who  make  politics  their  personal 
business  for  gain  or  glorification." 

Some  officials  do  not  respect  the  right  of  the  public 
to  be  informed  concerning  the  public  business.  The 
worthy  citizen  takes  an  interest  in  public  affairs  as  he 
takes  an  interest  in  personal  matters,  and  is  anxious  to 
hold  the  so-called  public  servant  to  a  strict  accounta- 
bility for  his  stewardship. 

The  individual  or  the  newspaper  may  comment  or 
criticize  as  it  desires,  in  order  to  obtain  service  in  con- 
formity with  the  individual's  conception  of  public  good, 


[143] 


so  long  as  unlawful  means  are  not  advocated   and   a 
breach  of  the  peace  is  not  incited. 

Articles  objectionable  to  some  officials  not  only  are 
within  the  right  of  the  paper,  but  frequently  it  is  per- 
forming a  public  duty  in  printing  them. 

LOUISVILLE  (Ky.)  Herald,  Oct.   16,  1921. 

The  decision  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher,  sustaining  the 
demurrer  of  The  Chicago  Tribune  in  the  suit  brought 
by  the  city  of  Chicago  claiming  damages  to  the  tune 
of  $10,000,000,  is  a  decision  first  of  all  for  that  good 
government  of  which  a  free  press  is,  beyond  all  else,  the 
bulwark.  The  declaration  that  any  precedents  in  English 
common  law  restricting  such  liberty  could  not  be  held 
to  have  descended  to  American  practice  is  a  very  healthy 
one  and  has  applications  beyond  the  immediate  case. 
Decidedly,  a  blow  was  struck  for  the  protection  of  the 
people. 

FRANKFORT  (Ky.)  State  Journal,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Libeling  a  City 

No  newspaper  would  have  any  desire  to  libel  the  city 
in  which  it  is  published.  "Ne'er  a  peevish  boy  breaks 
the  cup  from  which  he  drinks  in  joy,"  observes  the  great 
Persian  poet,  Omar. 

The  welfare  of  a  newspaper  is  so  dependent  upon  the 
welfare  of  the  center  of  population  in  which  it  is  pub- 
lished that  only  a  fool  as  the  manager  of  a  newspaper 
would  want  to  slander  the  city.  The  Chicago  Tribune's 
victory  in  the  suit  for  $10,000,000  for  libel  of  Chicago 
was  expected.  The  outcome  of  the  case  is  a  victory, 
but  not  a  surprising  one,  for  the  press  of  America. 

By  the  way,  no  officer  of  any  city  imagines  that  any 
newspaper  could  have  an  interest  in  maligning  the  very 
source  of  its  meat  and  bread.  Criticising  a  city  admin- 
istration is  a  thing  apart  from  libeling  a  city.  The 
administration  in  Chicago  winced  under  criticism  of 
conditions  for  which  the  Tribune  and  the  News  held  it 
responsible,  and  sought  vindication  in  a  damage  suit. 
The  right  to  criticise  an  administration,  and  its  results, 
fiscal  and  otherwise,  must  exist  if  liberty  is  to  be  main- 
tained. 


[144] 


VALDOSTA  (Ga.)  Times,  Sept.  23,  1921. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  has  the  record  in  the  matter 
of  libel  suits  for  vast  sums  brought  against  it.  Henry 
Ford  claimed  a  million  and  now  the  city  of  Chicago 
demands  ten  millions  on  the  ground  that  its  credit  has 
been  injured  by  the  Tribune's  discussion  of  the  manage- 
ment of  Chicago's  finances.  If  every  American  news- 
paper that  at  one  time  or  another  has  criticized  the 
management  of  the  finances  of  its  city  or  town  were 
convicted  of  libel,  practically  the  whole  American  press 
would  be  threatened  with  bankruptcy. 

SAVANNAH  (Ga.)  News,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

When  Newspapers  Criticize 

Nobody  should  be  surprised  by  the  decision  of  Judge 
Fisher  in  the  suit  of  the  city  of  Chicago  against  the 
Tribune  of  that  city  for  $10,000,000  for  printing  of  alleged 
false  statements  regarding  Chicago's  financial  standing 
to  the  detriment  of  the  city's  credit.  Judge  Fisher 
decided  in  favor  of  the  newspaper  on  the  ground  that 
"this  action  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit 
and  objects  of  our  institutions."  The  decision  is  of 
much  importance  throughout  the  whole  country  because 
the  suit  was  the  first  on  record  in  which  a  municipality 
sought  to  restrict  the  right  to  criticize  its  acts  as  a  cor- 
poration. 

Newspapers  should  have  a  very  free  hand.  If  mayors 
could  hamper  them  by  saying  what  they  should  print, 
what  they  should  be  permitted  to  say  about  municipal 
corporations,  the  time  would  come  when  the  public 
would  be  in  slavery  to  a  few  politicians.  Many  indeed 
are  the  men  in  brief  authority  who  seek  to  prevent  news- 
papers from  criticising  their  acts.  The  Chicago  case  is 
one  in  point.  Mayor  Hylan  of  New  York  actually 
issued  a  proclamation  aimed  at  newspapers  in  that  city 
and  suggested  to  merchants  that  they  should  not  adver- 
tise in  certain  papers.  All  this  is  an  old  story  with  the 
newspapers;  they  see  mayors  come  and  mayors  go,  and 
they  know  just  about  what  to  expect  from  them  when 
these  men  in  office  for  a  time,  perhaps  over-impressed 
with  their  own  importance,  seek  to  censor  or  punish 
newspapers. 

[  145  ] 


The  Chicago  decision  shows  the  "little  kings"  where 
they  belong.  Let  them  attend  to  their  business,  which 
is  the  public's,  without  playing  too  much  politics,  and 
they  won't  have  to  worry  about  newspaper  criticism. 
A  man  in  office  who  deserves  praise  will  get  it  sooner 
or  later;  and  the  man  in  office  who  deserves  to  be  adverse- 
ly criticized  will  get  that,  too,  however  much  it  may 
wound  his  self-love. 

JACKSONVILLE  (Fla.)  Times  Union,  Oct.  23,  1921. 

The  Press,  the  Public  and  Officials 

Everywhere  are  newspapers  as  well  as  public  officials, 
and,  of  course,  people,  the  public,  or  there  would  be  no 
need  of  either  of  the  former.  Because  there  are  people, 
especially  those  who  desire  to  be  informed  as  to  current 
events  and  happenings,  in  which  they  are  more  or  less 
intimately  concerned,  there  are  newspapers.  To  serve 
the  public  is  the  function  of  these  modern  purveyors  of 
news  and  comment  thereon,  including  publicity  with  ref- 
erence to  the  doings,  or  the  failure  to  do,  in  the  case  of 
public  officials,  some  of  whom  are  known  at  times  to 
object  to  being  made  the  subject  of  newspaper  publicity 
and  observation  and,  if  needed,  criticism. 

Quite  recently  the  city  of  Chicago  brought  suit  against 
two  prominent  newspapers  of  that  municipality,  claim- 
ing damages  for  a  very  large  amount  in  each  case.  There 
is  reason  to  believe  that  the  suits  were  instituted  by 
politicians  of  that  notoriously  misgoverned  city  out  of 
revenge  for  exposures  with  reference  to  official  delin- 
quency. However  that  may  be,  the  judge  of  the  Cook 
county  circuit  court,  before  whom  the  first  of  these  cases 
was  brought  to  trial,  threw  it  out  of  court,  holding,  in 
the  course  of  a  very  important  opinion,  that— 

The  press  has  become  the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world,  and, 
to  a  great  extent,  humanity  in  contact  with  all  its  parts.  It 
is  the  spokesman  of  the  weak  and  the  appeal  of  the  suffering. 
It  holds  up  for  review  the  acts  of  our  officials  and  of  those 
men  in  high  places  who  have  it  in  their  power  to  advance 
peace  or  endanger  it.  It  is  the  force  which  unifies  public 
sentiment.  But  for  it  the  acts  of  public  benefactors  would 
go  unnoticed,  impostors  would  continue  undismayed  and 
public  office  would  be  rich  reward  of  the  unscrupulous 
demagogue. 


[146] 


It  will  be  well  for  public  officials  everywhere  to  make 
themselves  familiar  with  the  ruling,  as  laid  down  by 
the  Chicago  court,  and  its  judicial  opinion  with  reference 
to  the  true  functions  of  newspapers  and  their  rights  and 
privileges  under  the  law.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  far 
from  home,  wherever  may  be  one's  place  of  residence, 
to  find  public  officials,  particularly  those  of  the  "un- 
scrupulous demagogue"  type,  referred  to  by  the  Cook 
county  jurist,  who  would  be  only  too  glad  if  the  news- 
papers were  not  "the  eyes  and  ears  of  the  world,"  if 
they  did  not  hear  and  see  and  report  to  the  public  things 
that  officials  would  rather  should  not  be  made  public. 
And  how  they  would  find  "rich  reward"  if  the  public 
could  be  kept  from  knowledge  of  what  they  are  doing 
or  are  not  doing  in  their  administration  of  public  affairs, 
the  people's  business!  As  it  is,  in  too  many  instances 
there  is  sparing  of  public  officials  when  scathing  criticism 
and  severest  condemnation  is  their  deserving.  And  it 
is  only  fear  of  this  severer  treatment  that  deters  certain 
officials  from  "going  the  limit"  in  their  wrongdoing  or 
the  protection  of  wrongdoers. 

HOT  SPRINGS  (Ark.)  New  Era,  Sept.  22,  1921. 

The  Rights  of  the  Press 

Wey mouth  Kirkland,  of  counsel  for  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  against  which  a  suit  for  libel  in  the  sum  of 
$10,000,000  has  been  instituted  by  the  City  of  Chicago, 
in  an  argument  in  the  case  yesterday  declared  that 
limits  to  the  freedom  of  the  press  have  for  their  object 
protection  of  the  rights  of  the  individual,  but  not  pre- 
vention of  criticism  of  governments  or  public  officials. 

In  that  statement  is  bound  up  practically  all  that 
could  be  said  regarding  the  freedom  of  the  press,  about 
which  so  much  controversy  has  been  waged  ever  since 
newspapers  began  circulating.  No  reputable  newspaper 
will  seek  to  delve  into  the  private  lives  of  individuals, 
to  magnify  divorce  suits  and  bring  innocent  children 
into  the  limelight  because  of  the  sordid  lives  of  their 
parents  and  to  hold  up  to  public  curiosity  and  gossip 
the  domestic  relations  of  prominent  people.  Some  so- 
called  "yellow"  journals  do  this.  The  better  class  of 


[147] 


journals  hesitate  to  print  this  class  of  matter  and  use  it 
only  when  the  circumstances  are  out  of  the  ordinary 
and  the  people  of  such  prominence  as  to  justify  the 
stories. 

But  with  public  officials  the  case  is  different.  Officials 
represent  the  will  of  the  people  in  governmental  affairs, 
and  while  reputable  journals  do  not  deal  with  the  private 
lives  of  officials,  their  public  conduct  is  a  matter  of  vital 
consideration.  Newspapers  have  been  criticized  for 
delving  into  public  conduct  of  officials,  but  Cooley's 
"Constitutional  Limitations"  says: 

"If  newspapers  may  not  publish  news  with  impunity, 
they  may  at  least  discuss  with  freedom  and  boldness  all 
matters  of  public  concern,  because  this  is  the  privilege 
of  everyone.  The  privilege  extends  to  matters  of  govern- 
ment in  all  its  grades  and  branches;  to  the  perform- 
ance of  official  duty  by  all  classes  of  public  officers 
and  agents;  to  the  courts,  the  prisons,  the  reformatories, 
the  public  charities  and  the  public  schools." 

"This  is  the  privilege  of  the  citizen,"  declared  Mr. 
Kirkland.  "Of  the  press  it  is  far  more — it  is  the  duty. 
It  is  the  duty  required  of  the  press  by  the  public  which 
hold  the  press  accountable  for  its  alert  and  faithful 
performance." 

MONTGOMERY  (Ala.)  Advertiser,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

Two  Political  Curiosities 

Mayor  William  Hale  Thompson,  of  Chicago,  has 
haled  the  owners  of  the  Chicago  Daily  News  and  The 
Chicago  Tribune  into  court  to  show  cause  why  they 
should  not  pay  the  city  of  Chicago  $10,000,000  each  for 
"  libeling  "  the  community.  He  charges  that  their  attacks 
upon  his  administration  have  resulted  in  discrediting 
Chicago  and  lowering  its  financial  credit. 

Mayor  John  F.  Hylan,  of  New  York,  issues  a  formal 
proclamation  to  "the  business  men,  merchants  and  shop- 
keepers" of  New  York  in  which  he  recites  certain  offenses 
against  the  city  committed  by  the  anti-Hylan  news- 
papers. He  says  the  "hate-crazed"  papers  have  reck- 
lessly attacked  the  police  department  and  done  it 
injustice,  and  in  doing  injustice  to  the  police  and  the  city 


[148] 


government  harm  has  been  done  the  city.  According  to 
Hylan  people  would  think,  from  reading  the  papers,  that 
New  York  suffered  frequently  from  crime  waves,  when  it 
does  nothing  of  the  sort. 

Mayor  Hylan  regards  the  situation  as  rather  grave, 
and  he  suggests  to  the  business  men  of  New  York  that 
they  should  bring  the  papers  to  time  by  withdrawing 
their  advertising  patronage. 

No,  it  is  not  a  hoax  either  in  the  case  of  New  York  or 
Chicago.  The  two  demagogues  are  in  deadly  earnest. 
That  is  the  funny  part  about  it  all. 

Think  of  our  two  greatest  cities  having  men  like  these 
in  their  highest  places  of  power! 

MOBILE  (Ala.)  Register,  Oct.  17,  1921. 

Judge  Rebukes  Plaintiff 

Judge  Fisher,  in  his  dismissal  of  the  ten  million  dollar 
damage  suit  brought  by  the  city  of  Chicago  against  The 
Chicago  Tribune  for  saying  that  the  city  is  bankrupt, 
uttered  a  profound  truth  when  he  declared:  "This  suit 
is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius,  spirit  or  object  of  our 
institutions."  For  a  municipality  or  other  political  unit 
successfully  to  sue  one  of  its  constituents  for  damages 
would  be  to  win  a  revenue  that  is  practically  confiscation 
of  property.  It  places  a  governmental  authority  in  the 
wrong  relationship  to  the  governed.  A  parent  might  as 
well  turn  on  a  child  or  a  cow  gore  her  offspring.  As  the 
judge  said:  "It  does  not  belong  to  our  day  but  rather  to 
the  day  when  monarchs  promulgated  laws  with  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  out  their  lustful  passion  for  undisturbed 
power."  The  Tribune  is  used  to  damage  suits  of  all  kinds 
but  this  appears  to  be  unique  among  them  all. 

COLUMBIA  (N.  C.)  Journal,  Sept.  24,  1921. 

Free  Press  Attacked 

The  suit  brought  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  in  the 
name  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  for  $10,000,000  damages 
for  libel,  is  the  most  vicious  attack  upon  the  freedom 
of  the  press  that  this  country  has  ever  seen.  Wey mouth 
Kirkland,  one  of  the  defendant  paper's  attorneys,  fittingly 


[149] 


characterized  it  as  having  the  end  and  motive  of  securing 
protection  for  "entrenched  authority  from  inquiry  and 
criticism." 

An  unshackled  press  has  always  been  considered  one 
of  the  essential  elements  of  a  free  country.  The  founders 
of  this  Republic  recognized  it  in  the  Constitution,  and 
sought  to  insure  its  existence  by  writing  into  that  founda- 
tion of  our  liberties  a  provision  that  the  right  of  a  free 
press,  as  the  right  of  free  speech  and  of  free  public  assem- 
blage, could  not  be  prohibited. 

The  suit  against  the  Tribune,  if  won  by  the  powers 
who  instituted  it,  would  put  out  of  business  one  of  the 
largest  and  most  influential  dailies  in  America  today  as 
effectively  as  if  it  were  done  by  the  iron-hand  authority 
of  some  Prussian  censor,  for  the  sum  asked  is  the  valua- 
tion of  the  Tribune  publishing  company's  assets.  It 
would  set  a  precedent,  nullifying  in  practical  effect  the 
constitutional  guarantee,  for  every  deluded  little  crook 
who  happened  to  hold  an  office  of  authority  would  im- 
mediately seek  the  same  method  of  protecting  himself, 
however  much  a  criticizing  paper  might  be  serving  the 
public. 

The  laws  of  libel  are  very  stringent  in  the  various 
States.  If  a  newspaper  makes  an  unprovoked,  unjusti- 
fied or  malicious  attack  upon  the  character  of  any  person 
that  person  can  and  should  be  able  to  secure  redress  in 
the  courts.  But  it  is  a  different  matter  when  an  office 
holder  seeks  to  put  a  reputable  newspaper  out  of  business 
for  criticizing  the  acts  of  his  administration,  or  the  effects 
of  those  acts. 

Mayors  are  elected  by  the  people  to  serve  the  people. 
If  John  Henry  Citizen  does  not  like  the  way  he  is  served 
by  his  duly  elected  public  servant,  the  constitution  gives 
him  the  right  to  say  so.  And,  if  John  Henry  Citizen  is 
the  owner  of  a  newspaper,  the  constitution  guarantees  him 
the  right  also  to  print  what  he  thinks,  and  his  reasons  for 
so  thinking.  If  John  Henry  does  not  own  a  newspaper, 
and  still  wants  to  tell  his  opinions  to  the  world,  he  has 
the  right  to  write  them  to  any  newspaper  for  publication, 
if  it  sees  fit. 

The  suit  of  the  City  of  Chicago  seems  to  be  tainted 
with  the  same  old  monarchical  doctrine  that  Len  Small, 
indicted  governor  of  the  State  which  boasts  the  Windy 


[150] 


City,  sought  to  use  to  shield  himself  from  arrest  for 
alleged  embezzlement—  "The  King  Can  Do  No  Wrong.'* 
The  slogan  did  not  save  Small  from  arrest,  nor  will  it 
serve  the  officials  of  Chicago  as  a  weapon  for  putting  the 
Chicago  Tribune  out  of  business. 

RALEIGH  (N.  C.)  News,  Oct.  18,  1921. 

Silliness  Rebuked 

The  silliest  attempt  to  suppress  honest  criticism  of 
any  public  officers  was  when  the  city  government  of 
Chicago  started  a  suit  against  The  Chicago  Tribune  for 
ten  million  dollars  on  the  ground  that  it  was  guilty  of 
libel  in  that  it  had  animadverted  upon  the  city  adminis- 
tration. Nothing  could  please  unworthy  and  inefficient 
public  officers  better  than  to  have  the  courts  muzzle 
the  press.  The  absurdity  of  a  city  recovering  money 
from  a  newspaper  for  criticizing  bad  government  was 
apparent  to  everybody  except  to  thin-skinned  and  in- 
competent officials.  Of  course  the  judge  threw  the  case 
off  the  docket. 

The  best  service  a  journal  can  render  a  city  like  Chicago 
is  to  uncover  the  kind  of  city  government  which  has 
afflicted  it  for  some  years.  If  a  newspaper  is  silent  when 
public  officials  are  either  corrupt  or  inefficient,  that 
journal  instead  of  being  a  public  agent  of  service  becomes 
itself  unworthy  and  advertises  its  own  unfitness. 


[151] 


Criticizing  Public  Officials 

From  the  London  Times. 

On  the  same  day  lately  two  items  of  news  were  pub- 
lished, one  from  Persia,  the  other  from  the  United  States, 
but  both  of  interest  to  the  editors  of  newspapers,  and 
perhaps  to  their  readers.  A  Persian  newspaper  had 
joked  about  titles  conferred  upon  the  victors  in  a  recent 
battle;  whereupon  the  Minister  of  War  sent  for  the  edi- 
tor, gave  him  200  lashes  and  put  him  in  prison.  The 
American  attempt  to  deal  with  an  editor  was  less  puni- 
tively  ingenuous,  but  also  less  successful.  The  Mayor 
of  Chicago  brought  an  action  for  libel  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune,  claiming  £2,250,000  damages  on  the  ground  that 
the  paper  had  to  that  extent  impaired  the  credit  of  the 
city  by  its  attacks  on  the  municipal  administration;  but 
the  action  was  dismissed.  The  methods  of  the  Minister 
and  the  Mayor  were  different,  but  their  motives  and 
their  aims  were  the  same;  both  resented  criticism,  and 
both  tried  to  suppress  it.  No  doubt  the  Mayor  would 
have  acted  like  the  Minister  if  the  institutions  of  his 
country  had  allowed  him  to  do  so;  and  no  doubt 
Mayor  and  Minister  alike  believed  that  they  were 
acting  in  the  public  interest.  Officials  always  have 
believed,  and  always  will  believe,  that  it  is  wrong  to 
criticize  them;  they  are  experts,  and  know  better  than 
any  editor  what  ought  to  be  done;  if  they  sometimes  do 
evil  that  good  may  come,  they  are  to  be  judged  by  the 
good  they  intend,  not  by  the  evil  they  do,  or,  rather,  they 
are  not  to  be  judged  at  all,  but  left  free  to  get  on  with  their 
job,  whatever  it  may  be.  Only  by  long  and  painful 
experience  have  Western  nations  learned  that  freedom 
of  criticism,  with  all  its  drawbacks,  is  better  than  the 
freedom  of  officials  to  do  as  they  please. 

TORONTO  (Ontario)  Tribune,  Oct.  27,  1921. 

Free  Press  Necessary 

The  decision  of  Judge  Harry  Fisher  that  the  City  of 
Chicago  had  no  actionable  cause  against  The  Chicago 
Tribune  and  News  in  the  $10,000,000  damage  suits  in- 
stituted by  the  nefarious  Thompson  administration  posi- 


[152] 


lively  ami  specifically  upholds  the  freedom  of  I  he 
as  a  constitutional  right.  The  press  is  at  liberty,  t Ill- 
court  held,  not  only  to  exercise  the  equivalent  of  free 
speech  in  printing  news  and  expressing  opinion,  but  to 
expose  wrongdoing  in  public  office  and  even  to  attack 
public  servants. 

Modern  society  could  not  exist  in  security,  nor  repre- 
sentative government  endure,  without  alert,  just,  im- 
partial, vigorous  and  fearless  publicity.  And  the  un- 
trammeled  press,  sincere  in  motive  and  honest  in  pur- 
pose, is  the  most  indispensable  of  public  institutions. 
The  church,  the  schools,  commerce,  the  people  and  the 
government  itself  depend  on  the  daily  newspaper  as  their 
most  valuable  and  necessary  auxiliary,  using  it  constantly 
as  their  own  medium  to  advance  the  general  welfare. 

As  the  press  is  public,  it  must  be  free.  Because  it  is 
responsible  to  the  public,  its  abuse  of  power  need  not  be 
feared,  for  the  public  would  cease  to  support  a  newspaper 
that  violated  its  trust  or  failed  in  its  duty.  Putting  the 
press  in  chains  would  be  the  same  as  shackling  the  people. 
In  the  finality,  it  is  by  its  fulfillment  of  public  obligations 
that  a  newspaper  merits  respect  and  wields  influence, 
and  by  disregard  of  public  interests  or  the  common  weal 
that  it  destroys  itself. 

Ge  Qu'il  Faut  Savoir 

Liberte  de  la  Presse 

Un  joli  proces  de  2.250.000  livres  de  dommages  et 
interets  a  ete  intente  a  la  "Chicago  Tribune"  par  la 
municipalite  de  Chicago. 

La  "Chicago  Tribune"  avait  public*  une  serie  d'articles 
critiquant  les  extravagances  de  Tadministration  muni- 
cipale  de  Chicago  et  declarant  que  ces  extravagances 
avaient  amene  Tadministration  a  une  veritable  ban- 
queroute. 

Le  maire,  M.  Thompson,  qui  se  fit  remarquer  pendant 
la  guerre  par  ses  manifestations  pro-allemandes,  et  les 
autres  membres  de  radministration  repondirent  en  as- 
signant  le  journal  pour  entendre  dire  que  ses  articles 
etaient  diffamatoires  et  pretendant  que  les  articles  de  la 
"Chicago  Tribune"  avaient  nui  au  credit  de  la  ville,  ils 


[  153  ] 


reclamaient  au  nom  de  cette  derniere,  2.250.000  livres 
sterling,  pour  repondre  du  tort  cause. 

Le  journal  opposa  a  cette  demande  d'incompetence  que 
le  juge  admit  en  declarant  que  Faction  n'etait  en  har- 
monie  ni  avec  le  genie,  ni  avec  1'esprit,  ni  avec  le  but  des 
institutions  americaines. 

Le  juge  ajouta  que  si  une  telle  action  pouvait  etre 
admise,  les  autorites  publiques  auraient  a  leur  portee  un 
moyen  trop  aise  d'intimider  la  presse  et  de  reduire  leurs 
adversaires  au  silence. 

La  presse,  dit-il  encore,  est  de  venue  "les  yeux  et  les 
oreilles  du  public.  Elle  est  le  porte-parole  des  faibles  et 
des  souff rants.  Elle  a  le  droit  de  commenter  les  actes  des 
fonctionnaires  et  des  gens  en  place.  Si  ce  droit  n'existait 
pas,  les  bons  administrateurs,  les  bienfaiteurs  du  pays 
resteraient  inconnus:  les  imposteurs  ne  seraient  jamais 
demasques  et  les  fonctions  publiques  seraient  le  riche 
butin  des  demagogues." 

Conclusion : 

Quel  magnifique  jugement  de  bon  sens. 

Ceci  est  un  peu  semblable  a  mon  cas  actuel. 

Pourquoi  suis-je  devenu  publiciste  apres  la  guerre? 

Dans  le  but  seul  de  critiquer  et  de  combattre  un 
autoritaire  incapable  qui  aurait  ete  heureux  d'abattre 
tous  les  petits  fonctionnaires  et  autres. 

II  est  parti  de  Boulogne,  nous  n'en  causerons  plus. 
Paix  a  sa  triste  memoire. 

Pierre  LENNE. 


[  154  ] 


DEPT 


Th,<        T~  "T""  ONIY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 


fit? 


. 


LD2lA-60m-6,'69 
(J9096slO)476-A-32 


.General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


